Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

    Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

    #Counter-Resistance speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.

    In April, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had taken steps to challenge California’s decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up a showdown between the federal government and the West Coast headquarters of the #Resistance.

    Since then, the administration has prepared its plan to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions, included its mandate for electric-car sales, and is gearing up for its release.

    The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

    The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the Obama plan, according to the people.

    As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state, the people said.

    The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) joins the EPA in this action, as the rationale for the revocation is enhanced safety.

    The EPA and NHTSA revealed in a regulatory notice Friday that its upcoming proposal to reduce vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will be dubbed the “Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule,” indicating that administration officials will likely argue that stricter standards would compromise safety.

    Then-EPA head Scott Pruitt formally declared in April that the Obama plan to make emissions and efficiency standards stricter through 2026 is not appropriate. It was the first step toward potentially rolling the standards back.

    The agencies are expected in the coming days to float a proposal with a handful of ideas, including various levels of looser rules through 2026 and freezing the standards in 2020 with no additional ramping up.

    The response from green justice activists is fascinating, especially their newfound love of federalism.

    At this point, the green justice warriors may be regretting their decision to target Scott Pruitt so viciously. The new acting head of the EPA seems to have taken the driver’s seat and is speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 25, 2018 at 5:04 pm


    California needs to be cut off without recourse!

    “…. the waiver permits California to essentially set the nation’s car-exhaust policies.

    This, of course, forces the rest of the country to subsidize California’s environmental occultism, as the costs of these unnecessary abatement schemes

    are lowered in cost because their R&D costs are shared by a nation which doesn’t need them, and California gets the savings of a massive economy of scale only by drafting unwilling Americans to be forced into being consumers of the products that they demand but which few others want…….

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | July 25, 2018 at 5:07 pm


      RE: “At this point, the green justice warriors may be regretting their decision to target Scott Pruitt so viciously.”

        amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change.

        What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
        What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
        What is the overlap?
        What does it mean?

        So Obama attacked water vapor? Really?

      Fair enough … then why should I pay for flood/tornado/whatever damage to houses when my house isn’t involved … why should I pay for (via my taxes) for projects in states other than mine … etc.

        Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:40 pm

        As Davy Crockett pointed out, federal disaster relief is indeed wrong in principle, but at least the system we have now applies in principle to anywhere that suffers a disaster, so when you pay for floods in some other state you know that when your state has fires or an earthquake or whatever the same system will be there for you.

        But CA has not been getting something that’s available to everyone else; it’s been enjoying a special exemption from the law that controls all 49 other states.

        And this was not to satisfy some special need that CA had, but on the contrary to cater to a stupid whim that was of no benefit to CA itself, let alone anyone else. The only difference is that nobody else even wants it, while CA imagines it somehow benefits from this special treatment.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 26, 2018 at 5:04 pm

          Unfortunately 13 other states have joined the madness and have adopted Kali emissions standards. This press release from the Environmental Defense Fund is mostly pure propaganda and bunkum, but the list is accurate.

          The waiver requests from these 13 states were denied under Bush, but Obama reversed the decision in 2009. Congrats, Milhouse. You live in New York I believe. If you buy a new car today, it will be a Kali compliant car.

          Which is why I have just contacted my state Senator and lower house representative and suggested they introduce a bill stating that any product sold in Texas must meet the relevant federal standard and only that standard. In this case, the vehicle must only comply with the EPA standard. No vehicle that exceeds the EPA standard to meet the Kali standard may be sold in this state. If other states pass similar laws then car makers will have to choose which market they will service. And states that have not and will not adopt the Kali emissions standard are far and away the bulk of the car market in the United States.

          Vehicle manufacturers used to make special Kali compliant cars when I was growing up. For instance, the only engine you could get in the Corvette in the late ’70s was the 305. The 350 didn’t meet Kali emissions standards. But now with 13 other states adopting Kali standards manufacturers can no longer afford to maintain two different assembly lines. I want to start a movement to force them to choose.

            Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 8:11 pm

            You live in New York I believe. If you buy a new car today, it will be a Kali compliant car.

            On the other hand, living in NYC I’m very unlikely to buy a car. The public transport system is good enough that I have very little need for one, while keeping one parked legally (including moving it on alternate side days) is a huge time-consuming pain, and once it was parked legally I would be reluctant to move it, so I wouldn’t get much use out of it.

            Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 9:24 pm

            Yes, Milhouse, I understand that you have little need for your own car. And that parking is like renting a second, more luxurious apartment. Even though I’ve never been to NYC, and no insult to you as I would like to meet you in person, I really have no desire to go. Chicago, too.

            I’m happy as a clam down here in gun-totin,’ Bowie Knife-hugging, sword-totin’…


            … fly-over country with all the pretty girls and the tequila and everything from burritos to Zabaglione as I bow fish for Alligator Gar on the Trinity River.

            But we stinking, sister-marrying, NASCAR-loving hicks from the sticks are aware at some level in our lizard brains of conditions in your city.

            Maybe one reason is that we run institutions that are beneath you, such as the United States Navy. And when we got enlistees from NYC, and we were happy to have them thank you very much, the vast majority of them had never had a driver’s license. This caused real problems as we had a duty roster. And enlisted personnel were expected to perform those duties listed on the roster, one of which was duty driver. This was especially an issue when I was stationed in Japan. The Japanese allowed us to drive on their roads as long as the base certified us as “professional drivers,” similar the their commercial truck drivers. This was a formality as all we had to do was show we had a valid stateside driver’s license and they’d give us the card.

            How the hell do you do that with some kid from NYC who has never been behind the wheel in his life? Not to worry, us snaggle-toothed hillbillies found a way. And I’m not telling. Just be aware if you are from NYC you are still going to pull duty driver.

            Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 9:27 pm

            It’s not fair to the other Sailors if you don’t. Everybody has got to pull their weight.

    Tom Servo | July 25, 2018 at 5:07 pm

    This is pretty funny – someone bleating about “states rights”, when in fact what they’re for is a “right” that only California has, and which the other 49 do NOT have. Why should the other 49 states put up with that?

    But what I really love about this is how it makes liberal billionaires like Tom Steyer go insane with rage.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Tom Servo. | July 25, 2018 at 5:09 pm

      What The CA state has been doing is de facto “taxation without representation” for citizens of the other 49 states is it not?

        So … evidently you’re willing to allow higher smog levels in CA which cause more deaths than smog levels in your state … just so you can save a buck on your taxes? And the smog just doesn’t stay in CA ya know. No wonder CA flips you the bird.

          Tom Servo in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:30 pm

          That’s a completely insane comment. California can continue to regulate it’s air quality just like every other state can, as there are many sources of smog, especially industrial ones. California can do many many things to deal with their issues, and they don’t need to be The Great Enviro Dictator to the rest of the country to do it.

            Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 26, 2018 at 2:26 am

            So what you’re saying is, you don’t get it. You don’t why it’s wrong to give one state the veto power over what everyone else in the country can drive? That’s fine, Tom.

            Here’s where I demonstrate my value to my adopted yet always-home state Texas. My neighbors look at me askance and wonder what STDs (Statist Transmitted Deseases) I might have brought with me. The answer is none.

            Kali is the largest car market in the country. What state do you live in, Tom? I now proudly live in the great state of Texas. Don’t get me wrong, Kali was once a great state, until it decided to debauch itself. But why should the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) decide what everyone else can drive? Because that’s what’s happened.

            Since Kali is the largest car market in the country car manufacturers have found it the easy road to build and sell only Kali compliant cars. And force the rest of us to pay more for cars that should only be 50 state EPA compliant cars.

            This waiver gives Kali a stranglehold on what the rest of us can own and drive. I didn’t move to Texas for this. End it.

            Now, does anyone want to talk about the Barnett .50 cal. rifle?

            Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 26, 2018 at 2:51 pm

            Sorry, Tom, I misread your comment.

          Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:46 pm

          I thought the whole reason LA has so much smog is that it does stay where it is, due to the temperature inversions to which it’s prone. Once the stuff eventually disperses it’s not dangerous to anyone.

          puhiawa in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 10:01 pm

          California can regulate area specific smog if it wishes. But it should not be able to regulate my State’s vehicles. BTW, we have no smog.
          For example, CA could prohibit cars in various areas of Los Angeles.
          Should be fun.And on their dime.

          BobM in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 10:22 pm

          California smog is a fraction of the problem it was back in the 60s, mostly due to improvements in cars, yes. But the politicians at this point are enacting standards far in excess of affordable tech. Poor people have as much right to affordable autos as rich Californians have to sushi bars and Starbucks.

          California is still free to enact anti-smog measures. They just will be more local burdens instead of a burden on areas where smog is not an issue. Too much car pollution in downtown LA? Spend YOUR money on local mass transit and tax polluters who want to drive in downtown LA. Don’t require a car owner in Montana or upstate NY to spend thousands more on a car to address YOUR problem.

    In short, CA is allowed to crank their pollution standards some, but not to the nutty extreme that the High Environmentalists in their statehouse wanted.

    So CA can be nuts, just not insane.

      Latus Dextro in reply to georgfelis. | July 25, 2018 at 5:41 pm

      Oh, the insanity remains.
      EV’s (Tesla 3) lugs 30% of its curb weight as dead weight battery for the duration of its existence (a factor of x10 greater than a similar gasoline vehicle only at the point the tank is full).
      First, what an insane colossal waste of energy. Inefficiency at its best.
      Second, CA will need to import more coal produced power to address a growing power grid shortfall.
      Third, more CO2 (albeit a theoretical non-problem) will result from the production and running of EV’s than their gasoline counterparts.

    Tom Servo | July 25, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    Hey I just had a really novel idea – rather than letting just one state set emissions controls for the entire nation, how about if we had representatives of ALL of the states meet together, where they could vote on the rules that would affect them all? We could call this kind of a meeting a “congress” or something, do you think it would work?

    naaaaah, probably not.

    TimothyJ | July 25, 2018 at 5:10 pm

    So, ‘states’ rights’. Is that where California trumps 49 other states by requiring them to pay for additional emission controls on vehicles that they neither want nor need. Ha! Trump trumps California.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend