silvrsvt Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/17/trump-california-emissions-rules-ban/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 So much for "States Rights"..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Interstate Commerce, not state's rights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, twintornados said: So much for "States Rights"..... What it boils down to is that California can more or less set policy when it comes to emissions/fuel economy standards because 12 other states plus DC use CARB rules. I get why CARBwas established by California (due to smog issues from emissions of the 1970s plus geological conditions) but as of 2016 EPA has had the same regulations (up to that point) that matched CARB rules. What we have now is a butterfly effect and a state having too much power and it interfering with federal power. CARB originally "in addition to" EPA guidelines, but as described above, its now dictating policy to the rest of the country. What works in California doesn't exactly work everywhere else in the country-I saw an article that California was talking about banning the use of Natural Gas due to greenhouse gases and forcing new construction houses to use electric appliances only. I'm sure you can imagine people's reaction to that one-not to mention to mention that would never fly in areas where you actually see freezing or below freeing temps for long periods of time in the Winter. Edited September 18, 2019 by silvrsvt Used wrong acronym 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmpaul Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 One of the arguments that the Trump administration is pushing is that the CAFE rules would make cars too expensive. Consequently, keeping them cheaper would allow more people into newer cars and the net result would be lower emissions as less people would be driving older, higher emission cars. It's not without some truth. I've seen studies in the past that show the best way to lower emissions was to ban older cars but I don't know if that's still the case. The main emission of concern is of course CO2, which correlates with fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 California emission rules are followed by several states including NYS. California also requires manufacturers to provide longer warranties on emissions components which is also followed by the very same states that adhere to their emissions regs. I know this because several years ago, my niece had an Escape hybrid and the cooling fan on the battery pack failed. It was just "outside" of the regular warranty, but I found that NYS follows California regs and the repair was covered under the extension set by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 41 minutes ago, twintornados said: California emission rules are followed by several states including NYS. California also requires manufacturers to provide longer warranties on emissions components which is also followed by the very same states that adhere to their emissions regs. I know this because several years ago, my niece had an Escape hybrid and the cooling fan on the battery pack failed. It was just "outside" of the regular warranty, but I found that NYS follows California regs and the repair was covered under the extension set by them. CARB Section 177 States & District for vehicle emission regulations. California Colorado (starting with model year 2022) Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Washington District of Columbia States in bold also follow CARB ZEV mandate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 It's a joke, many manufacturers actually build all their vehicles to meet the California standard, the only difference is the emission label under the hood. If I am not mistaken, the manufacturers have to submit their vehicles to the California Air Resources Board for testing and certification as they do to the E.P.A,. If true, I am sure the C.A.R.B. does not do that for free, and that is likely the real reason why California is so adamant about retaining the right to tax, I mean test, vehicles sold in their state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said: It's a joke, many manufacturers actually build all their vehicles to meet the California standard, the only difference is the emission label under the hood. If I am not mistaken, the manufacturers have to submit their vehicles to the California Air Resources Board for testing and certification as they do to the E.P.A,. If true, I am sure the C.A.R.B. does not do that for free, and that is likely the real reason why California is so adamant about retaining the right to tax, I mean test, vehicles sold in their state. There are at least 3 standards involved. Tailpipe emissions. This refers to non-methane organic gases (NMOG) + nitrogen oxides + particulate matter. Greenhouse gas emissions. This refers to carbon dioxide + nitrous oxide + methane. ZEV mandates. This refers to requirements for automakers to sell a certain number of zero emissions vehicles (BEV or FCEV), or have credits from selling TZEV (transitional zero emission vehicles, mostly plug-in hybrids and extended range electric vehicles) or buying them outright from other automakers. The first standard for 2019 - 2025 model year vehicles is now almost completely harmonized between federal (EPA Tier 3) and CARB (LEV 3). With the second and third standards, there are differences between federal and CARB states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, silvrsvt said: What it boils down to is that California can more or less set policy when it comes to emissions/fuel economy standards because 12 other states plus DC use CARB rules. I get why CARBwas established by California (due to smog issues from emissions of the 1970s plus geological conditions) but as of 2016 EPA has had the same regulations (up to that point) that matched CARB rules. What we have now is a butterfly effect and a state having too much power and it interfering with federal power. CARB originally "in addition to" EPA guidelines, but as described above, its now dictating policy to the rest of the country. What works in California doesn't exactly work everywhere else in the country-I saw an article that California was talking about banning the use of Natural Gas due to greenhouse gases and forcing new construction houses to use electric appliances only. I'm sure you can imagine people's reaction to that one-not to mention to mention that would never fly in areas where you actually see freezing or below freeing temps for long periods of time in the Winter. It's actually written into law in the Clean Air Act. The Feds can only revoke CA's power to regulate emission when CA deems there is no longer a need for it. Trump can attempt to revoke it but EPA actually does not have the authority to do so. It is a huge Federal overreach. The Clean Air Act allows the withdrawal of the waiver only on the following three grounds: (A) [California’s] determination [that its standards in the aggregate will be at least as protective] is arbitrary and capricious, (B) [California] 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 [202(a)]. So essentially, Trump is directing EPA to ignore the Clean air Act. And let's be clear... CARB emission standards (and by association CAFE because emission and consumption are two sides of same coin) is the current 50 state standard. There is no separate CARB and EPA standards. The auto companies asked for this during Obama Administration and got what they wanted. The issue now is purely political because the current administration wants to nullify everything that the previous administration accomplished. The few auto company that went along with it is basically in a suicide pact with Trump Administration... except they've already pulled the trigger to shot themselves in the face while Trump is still holding the gun. This will be litigated in court for many years and will outlast the Trump administration. Unless Congress amend the Clean Air Act, the courts will probably side with California. And lastly, the CARB (and current EPA) standards is nearly identical to EU and Chinese emission standards. This is why some of the smarter car companies (i.e. Ford is one of them) is saying WTF, why wouldn't we want to meet CARB emission and existing CAFE? It's not like we will see a significant cost saving is EPA lower the Federal standards. Edited September 18, 2019 by bzcat 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 You make very valid points, the environment we live in today would be much worse without this provision of the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, bzcat said: This will be litigated in court for many years and will outlast the Trump administration. Unless Congress amend the Clean Air Act, the courts will probably side with California. And lastly, the CARB (and current EPA) standards is nearly identical to EU and Chinese emission standards. This is why some of the smarter car companies (i.e. Ford is one of them) is saying WTF, why wouldn't we want to meet CARB emission and existing CAFE? It's not like we will see a significant cost saving is EPA lower the Federal standards. By the time the court battles are over, ZEV particularly BEV will be the norm among new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. anyway. The claim by the President that revoking CARB ability to set greenhouse emissions standards for vehicles will make those vehicles safer and less expensive is just the usual political banter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, rperez817 said: By the time the court battles are over, ZEV particularly BEV will be the norm among new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. anyway. The claim by the President that revoking CARB ability to set greenhouse emissions standards for vehicles will make those vehicles safer and less expensive is just the usual political banter. Yea, it's basically nonsense that this will result in cheaper cars and trucks. And it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the authority to revoke the waiver. Only congress can do that because Clean Air Act is a law, not an executive order or administrative policy. The constitution gives legislative power to congress. I learn that in 10th grade US Govt class. I guess Trump wasn't paying attention ? Edited September 18, 2019 by bzcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said: It's a joke, many manufacturers actually build all their vehicles to meet the California standard, the only difference is the emission label under the hood. If I am not mistaken, the manufacturers have to submit their vehicles to the California Air Resources Board for testing and certification as they do to the E.P.A,. If true, I am sure the C.A.R.B. does not do that for free, and that is likely the real reason why California is so adamant about retaining the right to tax, I mean test, vehicles sold in their state. CARB doesn't conduct any certification test. Car companies submit certification to CARB just like they do with EPA. The work is all done at the same time, usually by independent labs e.g. the guys that blew the whistle on VW diesel gate. And just to clarify, there is currently no difference between CARB and EPA emission. The car companies asked for a 50 state standard during the Obama Administration and they got what they wanted. Edited September 18, 2019 by bzcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmpaul Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 48 minutes ago, bzcat said: And just to clarify, there is currently no difference between CARB and EPA emission. The car companies asked for a 50 state standard during the Obama Administration and they got what they wanted. So, if the EPA and CARB is the same regarding emission, is the only change being examined the fuel economy rules? I believe that is the case, but I am no expert and the reporting on this typically focuses on the politics rather than the issues at hand. I know California and the EPA have been negotiating for quite a while to reach a 50 state standard and haven't been able to reach common ground. This may be another negotiation tactic. The EPA knows there is going to be a court battle. It will be interesting to hear the arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmpaul Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 And I might add I think government dictating fuel economy standards is the wrong way to encourage fuel-efficient cars. A gas tax is the most efficient way to reduce gas consumption. By efficient, I am referring to an economists point of view where taxes should be done with the least amount of overhead and burden to the economy. A gas tax avoids all the byzantine rules and regulations around CAFE, and puts the marketplace in control. It would be politically unpopular though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 44 minutes ago, dmpaul said: So, if the EPA and CARB is the same regarding emission, is the only change being examined the fuel economy rules? I believe that is the case, but I am no expert and the reporting on this typically focuses on the politics rather than the issues at hand. I know California and the EPA have been negotiating for quite a while to reach a 50 state standard and haven't been able to reach common ground. This may be another negotiation tactic. The EPA knows there is going to be a court battle. It will be interesting to hear the arguments. We have one single national emission standard and CAFE tareget NOW. It has been the case since 2016 when the Obama era EPA brokered the compromise between auto companies and CARB to come to a 50 state solution. What Trump is trying to do is undo the single 50 state standards and introduce a lower CAFE targets. They know this won't work because CA is not obligated to go along - because the Clean Air Act gives CA the legal authority to regular its own emission. So Trump is trying to revoke that authority. The legal argument is pretty slam dunk. Unless congress changes the law, EPA does not have the power to revoke CA's ability to regular emission. The Clean Air Act give CA the power to decide when its authority should end as a deference to the fact that CA's emission laws were in effect before the Federal Clean Air Act. Because this is a law, only congress can change it. This is a pretty silly power grab by the Executive branch of Federal Govt that will almost certainly fail in court. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 28 minutes ago, dmpaul said: And I might add I think government dictating fuel economy standards is the wrong way to encourage fuel-efficient cars. A gas tax is the most efficient way to reduce gas consumption. By efficient, I am referring to an economists point of view where taxes should be done with the least amount of overhead and burden to the economy. A gas tax avoids all the byzantine rules and regulations around CAFE, and puts the marketplace in control. It would be politically unpopular though. A reasonably high gas tax or CO2 tax (they are the same thing... one tax the input, the other tax the output) is the most effective way to regulate greenhouse gas emission. However, you are forgetting the emission also include smog forming particles and non-greenhouse gas. You can control fuel consumption but regulating emission. But you cannot control emission (all of it, not just greenhouse gas) by regulating fuel consumption. It's not a 2-way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, bzcat said: And it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the authority to revoke the waiver. Only congress can do that because Clean Air Act is a law, not an executive order or administrative policy. The constitution gives legislative power to congress. I learn that in 10th grade US Govt class. I guess Trump wasn't paying attention ? Technically, you’re correct. However, multiple presidents (Republican and Democrat) have signed executive orders that contradicted existing law. Was it legal? No, but they did it anyway. The one thing that might prevent this is the fact that the Democrats try to challenge anything the Trump Administration does. And they would have solid legal grounds to challenge this. Edited September 19, 2019 by CurtisH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 10 hours ago, dmpaul said: One of the arguments that the Trump administration is pushing is that the CAFE rules would make cars too expensive. Consequently, keeping them cheaper would allow more people into newer cars and the net result would be lower emissions as less people would be driving older, higher emission cars. It's not without some truth. I've seen studies in the past that show the best way to lower emissions was to ban older cars but I don't know if that's still the case. The main emission of concern is of course CO2, which correlates with fuel economy. Yes, and he wants to bring back incandescent bulbs to "save money" despite the fact that it clearly doesn't. What are the trillions we have spent for middle east oil and wars. If we didn't need their oil we would not be there. World would be a better place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 17 hours ago, bzcat said: Yea, it's basically nonsense that this will result in cheaper cars and trucks. And it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the authority to revoke the waiver. The constitution gives legislative power to congress. I learn that in 10th grade US Govt class. I guess Trump wasn't paying attention ? If only it worked that way. Congress ceded its legislative powers to federal agencies and lets the agencies write the regulations for the laws they pass. I learned that on the Mark Levin show. I guess you haven't been listening. Trump is President and this is his EPA. A comment on another article states CA can have a waiver and that person provided the following info: CA may be granted a waiver if they meet the following criteria: According to the Clean Air Act Section 209 – State Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver unless it finds that California: was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards; does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or has proposed standards not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Operative word here is “MAY” be given a waiver, which which is NOT Mandatory. A Great first step to fix this hellhole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmpaul Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, bzcat said: A reasonably high gas tax or CO2 tax (they are the same thing... one tax the input, the other tax the output) is the most effective way to regulate greenhouse gas emission. True, but a gas tax would presumably target automobiles while a CO2 tax would hit a variety of energy consumers. Quote However, you are forgetting the emission also include smog forming particles and non-greenhouse gas. I understand that, I was just saying that the fight is over fuel economy standards (formerly CAFE), not the other emissions. Fuel economy standards didn't originally fall under EPA purview, but by pulling CO2 under their regulatory umbrella it allows EPA to regulate fuel economy. Edited September 19, 2019 by dmpaul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 41 minutes ago, dmpaul said: True, but a gas tax would presumably target automobiles while a CO2 tax would hit a variety of energy consumers. The U.K. uses CO2 emissions as a basis for annual vehicle registration tax. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). https://goodcalculators.com/car-tax-calculator/ CO2 Emissions (g/km) First Year Rate Standard Rate (year two onwards) Premium Rate* 0 0 0 £310 1-50 £10 £140 £450 51-75 £25 £140 £450 76-90 £100 £140 £450 91-100 £120 £140 £450 101-110 £140 £140 £450 111-130 £160 £140 £450 131-150 £200 £140 £450 151-170 £500 £140 £450 171-190 £800 £140 £450 191-225 £1200 £140 £450 226-255 £1700 £140 £450 Over 255 £2000 £140 £450 * Cars above £40,000 pay £310 supplement for 5 years https://goodcalculators.com/car-tax-calculator/ © 2015-2019 goodcalculators.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Bryan1 said: If only it worked that way. Congress ceded its legislative powers to federal agencies and lets the agencies write the regulations for the laws they pass. I learned that on the Mark Levin show. I guess you haven't been listening. Trump is President and this is his EPA. A comment on another article states CA can have a waiver and that person provided the following info: CA may be granted a waiver if they meet the following criteria: According to the Clean Air Act Section 209 – State Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver unless it finds that California: was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards; does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or has proposed standards not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Operative word here is “MAY” be given a waiver, which which is NOT Mandatory. A Great first step to fix this hellhole. Actually the operative word is the EPA "shall" grant a waiver unless.... These is all theater. It will be stuck in the courts until Trump is gone. Furthermore, California would have an easy answer if they lost in the courts. Add a gas guzzler/carbon tax on any cars/manufactures that do not comply with California requirements. Make the formula such that the companies that have agreed with California i.e Ford would not pay. Make the tax prohibitive say $10,000 on every truck and suv from a non complying company i.e GM and see what happens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 5 hours ago, msm859 said: Actually the operative word is the EPA "shall" grant a waiver unless.... These is all theater. It will be stuck in the courts until Trump is gone. Furthermore, California would have an easy answer if they lost in the courts. Add a gas guzzler/carbon tax on any cars/manufactures that do not comply with California requirements. Make the formula such that the companies that have agreed with California i.e Ford would not pay. Make the tax prohibitive say $10,000 on every truck and suv from a non complying company i.e GM and see what happens. Great idea, tax all the people who don’t think like you, because that is what you are suggesting. That affects everyone across the political spectrum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.