A showdown between California and Trump over car emissions is coming right up, and California is a strong favorite to lose.
Please consider California Isn’t Planning to Back Away From Zero-Emission Car Rules.
Investors who pushed up shares of GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler on a bet that Donald Trump will gut clean-air rules may have forgotten another player with a big say: California.
The state has more people and cars than any other, giving its regulators an outsize influence on what automakers build. And lest anyone think differently, California has no intention of backing away from clean-air enforcement, even if Trump undermines federal mandates, said Dan Sperling, a member of its powerful Air Resources Board.
“The ARB is definitely committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030,” Sperling said. “I don’t think the California effort will be much affected.”
Auto stocks surged last week after the president-elect named climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team.
On Thursday, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, with two years left in his term, tweeted that California will “continue to confront the existential threat of our time – devastating climate change.” ARB Chairman Mary Nichols tweeted, “California’s commitment to clean air and climate protection has been strengthened by this election.”
Before California can extend its ZEV mandates beyond 2025, it will need permission from Trump or his successor — or threaten to sue, a step it’s taken before. In the meantime, the Republican-controlled Congress could amend the Clean Air Act to remove California’s ability to set its own standard, or for other states to adopt similar plans. Congress could slash the EPA budget.
Automakers may be in a position to promote a compromise between Trump and California, since they need rules that let them sell the same cars in all 50 states, said Robert Bienenfeld, assistant vice president for environmental policy at Honda Motor Co. in the U.S.
Automakers may be in a position to promote a compromise between Trump and California, since they need rules that let them sell the same cars in all 50 states, said Robert Bienenfeld, assistant vice president for environmental policy at Honda Motor Co. in the U.S.
“Maybe automakers will need to come to the defense of the EPA,” Bienenfeld said. “We need an enforcement agency to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. There are lots of good rules that are broadly supported by the public. The wholesale disbandment of EPA is unthinkable.”
California Has Two Choices
California likely has two choices, neither of which it will like:
- Compromise
- Risk Trump wholesale gutting the EPA
The irony in this mess is the huge push to electric cars is going to happen anyway. Even electric powered trucks are coming.
Driverless Uber cars and taxis are coming. There will be much less of a need for vehicles in cities by 2025.
Completely Driverless Vehicle Testing
In October, California Approved Cars With No Steering Wheel or Pedals for Testing.
However, the new law only applies to a project spearheaded by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, called GoMentum, and a business park in San Ramon, California.
Moreover, the law includes provisions to keep the self-driving cars under 35 mph and strict reporting requirements for any crashes in the cars.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
” they need rules that let them sell the same cars in all 50 states”
this seems to me a vast oversimplification. Emissions can be tweaked by computer on the fly as we learned from Volkswagen. Also, I don’t care how big California is, if enough other states get on board, they will lose.
Absolutely right, Anonymous. California is already selling cars specially modified to meet state rules, and will continue to do so under Trump. Automaker problems go much deeper. Trump is too smart to pick a fight and waste his political capital on this red herring. Opting USA.gov out of the Global Climate Change scam and slimming EPA bureaucratic headcount and regulations (downsizing, right-sizing) is the bigger game.
I call Global Climate Change a scam, because it is a clever way of routing profit to Commodity Trading Exchanges for CO2 Emissions. Like those owned by George Soros. It’s a brilliant “Save the Planet” story masking Pay-for-Play; works best with Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. Businesses are lowering their carbon footprint (CO2 emissions) without financial coercion or gas trading exchanges because it boosts business profits. Also good PR, as they can say they are sustainable and environmental. But the bottom line is more profit when you burn less fossil fuel to obtain the same output. CO2 is just a puny air impurity, less than 1% of atmospheric gases, essential to plant photosynthesis and agriculture. But what a great scam to appeal to 20th century atheists and socialists who place their faith in “science,” like it was a god, even though they understand nothing about science. Their real Faith is in Party Slogans proclaiming consensus among scientists. Climate change is just part of the Marxist propaganda mix, along with race, class, gender, income equality, etc. I think Trump understands this, and will let California do its thing while he guts the scam on the national and international levels. The photo with Nigel Farage speaks volumes.
If electric cars are coming anyway, as you say, then there is little need for government mandates and subsidies.
Totally agree. While we are talking about subsides lets get the US troops out of the middle east or that is not an oil subside to you?
I agree 100%. We should also be totally out of Europe, Korea, Japan, all areas of the world who leach off the US military. Fight your own wars, protect yourself with your own money and blood. The USA and the American Continent is totally energy independent. We do not need any of it. All international subsidies should stop, in all forms.
The purpose of “government mandates and subsidies” is not to enable automotive electrification. It is to funnel money and influence from regular Joe taxpayers, to those who are politically favored. Then, to take credit for things that would have happened anyway if they turn out to be successful and popular.
yep, Elon Musk perfect example of that.
Why would Trump want to impose his will on California? The people in California voted for what they want. Let them have it. They’re not hurting New Yorkers.
Please Think
Manufacturers do not want one set of cars for CA and another for the rest of the nation.
It is not so easy to say just let CA do what it wants
What Jon doesn’t see (probably because he doesn’t want to) is that it does hurt New Yorkers – and everyone else. Car makers build one car – not fifty different ones. They build the ones CA demands, and then sell the same car everywhere and spread the added costs demanded by the voters of CA to the entire country. So CA voters *are* hurting everyone else by demanding to be special. They’re imposing their will on everyone else by increasing the costs and availability of vehicles to the entire country.
In my opinion, auto makers should decide to build one car that fits whatever the feds say. If California voters decide it needs to be different, then they can either a) not buy cars or b) buy the ones that are sold everywhere else. pay out of their own pockets to modify them to fit what they demand. In either case, they need to leave the rest of us alone.
It sure seems to me that this is the very thing “regulate interstate commerce” refers to: Not allowing one state to somehow impose its will on the rest or force the rest to pay for something it wants.
“… CA voters *are* hurting everyone else by demanding to be special. They’re imposing their will on everyone else …”
Voting is violence, albeit the lowest-energy form permitted to us by the sovereign.
For a “globalist” you have a really US centrist view of the world. If CA is forced to downgrade their emissions rules then CA will by foreign cars with better emissions profile. Or have you forgotten what happened when gas prices went through the roof and Americans turn to Japanese made cars? The reality is that there is a big market of consumers who want cars with low emissions and markets “trump” Trump every time.
Automakers have been doing that since the early seventies, when they were putting special smog pumps and other emission devices on CA cars that no one else had. I assume that most of those costs would be to CA, but I’m willing to live with a little extra cost in Texas to allow CA to do as they wish. It’s the cost of freedom. This is what people fail to recognize (or care) is that by imposing Federal mandates on everyone for the sake of efficiency or convenience, it comes at a cost to all as well. We fund EVERY cost saving and convenience factor in our lives with FREEDOM. Freedom of choice, which in my book is all of what freedom is,,,,the opportunity to CHOOSE for one’s self. It can never be a black or white issue. What is important is that people understand the cost/benefit of each opportunity. This should be the goal of government and the media…to inform us, to add transparency, rather than lying to us to advance an agenda that THEY have decided is in our best interest. A society that doesn’t understand what is in their best interest is a society that does not deserve to exist.
Agreed Mad. Freedom is individuals following their own destinies and accepting the result. Tyranny is working backward from a conclusion, very unscientific.
Caught yourself out there Mish I think – why should it come down to what manufacturers want?
If we de-complicate the issue it is :
Individual choice vs local community legislation vs federal legislation.
You cannot square that easily. For example Cal. wants clean air, individual and Federal gov. ok gasoline … who is right, as local vote was for clean air ? Individual freedom or federal legislation of freedom /against restriction, is going to turn into a circular argument.
If federal law says Cal. has ultimate right to choose, so it should be, though I would personally prefer that the shift were by individual adhesion to a direction. Even for the latter it is often resolved by what is ( decided to be) offerred.
What happens to interstate vehicles?
Everyone should be able to do what they want, to the greatest even remotely possible extent. That’s what freedom is all about.
CA is large enough, that those who make decisions there, are forced to largely eat their own dog food. Meaning, setting standards at the state level, will not unduly violate equality under the law. Hence, there is little reason to ban them from making their own emissions rules at the state level.
Thus done, CA car dealers can bring in those car models they are comfortable/allowed selling from each manufacturer, while leaving the rest to dealers/consumers in other states.
In practice, over time even a market as big as CA, will come to recognize the inefficiency of being too far out of sync, but that’s their problem. Not something the Feds ought to be involved in.
I think there can be one manufacturer for California cars, and the auto companies can continue to sell their cars in the other forty-nine. It means cars will be quite expensive, so people will typically have to upgrade their commuter vehicles to 1972 Winebagos, but I really don’t see a problem with this.
This wasn’t a vote it was against our will… us Californians don’t want this clean air act… I am a owner operator trucker and it has put a blanket on the industry… Having to get rid of all our payed off trucks to buy a piece of crap that the clean air people carb is having automakers put on these huge motors is costing us a fortune… I use to be able to make 200,000 a year and do pretty good now if you make 200,000 more than half of that is going back to the truck on just repairs because of the fact that we have filters on our motors now and still hauling around 80,000 pounds everyday… the motor can’t breathe correctly… air isn’t moving around correctly…. anyways this was forced on us not voted in
Yes, electric vehicles are coming, at least in metropolitan areas. So all the pollution and CO2 will be generated along with the electricity, much less efficiently, at power plants far away that the regulators pretend don’t exist….
Cars will recharge themselves with roof mounted windmills.
Yeah Baby!
The ‘SJW Special Edition’
They’ll sell a million of ’em
There is nothing exceptionally wrong about electric cars. As long as any manufacturer or purchaser subsides and any other financial incentives are solely State based then I don’t see a problem. If people want to buy them let them have them. If California wants to drive out none electric cars, well in the end it will be down to the voters there. If California want to impose greater restrictions than is Federally imposed motor manufacturers will have to decide if they want to make all their manufacture comply or accept they won’t sell in California. I am sure Californians will be capable of dealing with that. Why should California with approx 11% of total US car sales be the tail that wags the dog?
How does California get around the US Constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Doesn’t Federal Law “trump” State Law?
Bottom line …. Trump will never win the state of California in 2020. On top of that, Hollywood and Silicon Valley have been “mean” to him.
Payback
Yes Payback!!!! Never mind that CA GDP is bigger than any of the red states. Yes I would like to see the red states go without the blue states. And lets not talk about the “technology GDP”. Yes I would love to see that payback you talk about LOL
Payback will be the agreement between automakers and EPA.
If automakers want to pursue the california proposal with the EPA, so be it.
I highly doubt DJT will ask California what they want.
The commerce clause has been used a principle tool to overcome all other limitations of our federal government provided by the constitution since the 1930s. Apparently, that was not the interpretation of that clause until that time…a time when it was decided that our economy was in such duress as to justify some creative interpretation…..kind of stepping over the constitution so as to avoid stepping on it. Today, virtually everything our government does has something to do with commerce and as such gives them almost complete autonomy over states rights in that regard. It is only when states act in such a way as to advance agendas that our federal government finds difficult to achieve legislation or adjudication on, that they defer to the states….such as sanctuary cities and drugs, where they simply look the other away.
The commerce clause has been used extensively over the last 80 years to give unprecedented control over local matters, such as with the original test case that enabled its use, where the federal government deemed that they could control a small farmers wheat production that he was generating for his own use, as growing wheat for his own consumption would deprive the “market” of his participation, thereby effecting the price of wheat.
THIS is our federal government.
Good insight.
Gun manufacturers have to make “special” guns for the leftists, so why not autos?
California and ARB have been the tail wagging the dog for over 20 years – I worked on developing low permeation fuel hose for the entire North American auto market over twenty years ago to meet Californian regulations long before any other agency forced the issue. The central concern was not then climate change but smog and voc emissions. Californian laws were passed with a supportive electorate then and I do not believe that support has waned now climate change is moved to centre stage.
If there is a state facing a changing climate (for whatever cause) it is California and the ongoing drought so good luck convincing CA voters to back off.
It is far cheaper for the auto industry to meet the tightest standards than market different vehicles to different markets. Besides the industry is now global and standards in Asia and Europe are also effectively as tight as technology will allow – California will not be the leading jurisdiction addressing lower emissions in the modern world as they were twenty years ago.
The US can embrace climate change and market low emission products or be forced out of world markets.
That climate change deniers have taken power in the US will not reverse climate change facts. As the evidence continues to mount change will occur. Stick your head in the sand if you wish. Live in your little safe places where facts and reams of evidence do not matter. But you might want to avoid low laying coastal areas and high temperature regions prone to drought.
Nobody denies climate change.
Or night and day.
Claiming ownership is at issue. On SJWs are that arrogant.
If Europe is so much more advanced in their emissions requirements, why is it that America has had such a hard time importing European made diesels? Europe uses diesels hugely, yet America keeps trashing them, to the point we see Volkswagen getting beaten up over the fake emissions. Evidently Europe has no problem with them.
“Live in your little safe places where facts and reams of evidence do not matter. But you might want to avoid low laying coastal areas and high temperature regions prone to drought.”
Haven’t noticed any change at Santa Monica Beach in 39 years.
California has had droughts that have lasted 100 years, in the unrecorded past. To climate hysterics, facts and evidence don’t matter.
Climate change, a fact of life on Earth for billions of years, is real. Anthropogenic climate change has not been proved, thus the controversy. Policy designed to combat the as-yet-unproved anthropogenic climate change is a manifestation of the juvenile urge to “DO SOMETHING!!!” Oh, and political favorites will make a mint. That too.
One solution is that automakers could sell only their electric fleet in CA, and their entire line in the rest of the states. Of course, that would kill CA dealers, as most people would just buy their cars in OR or NV.
Honda’s Civic and Accord were the top-selling subcompact and standard midsize vehicles, respectively, and were the No. 1 and No. 2 vehicles sold overall, according to research by the California New Car Dealers Assn.
Why would they leave the state?
I’m saying that if CA has a zero ememission mandate in the future, which is basically either an electric or natural gas vehicle, and someone wants to own a vehicle that has a range greater than say 200 miles or has more readily available fuel, they could go across state lines and get a regular gasoline powered car.
The Honda Accord dethroned the Toyota Prius as the best-selling motor vehicle in California last year, with 73,246 registrations. The Prius was second with 71,210 registrations.
The Honda CR-V was again the state’s top-selling sport-utility vehicle with 34,980 registrations.
Toyota remained the top-selling brand statewide, with its models accounting for 22 percent of California’s new car registrations.
I’m glad i didn’t vote for Trump.
Looks like Goldman and Billionaire Hedge Fund managers are running deep through the transition team’s veins right now. Jamie Dimon, Mnuchin, Icahn, Steve Cohen and Draghi.
I can almost sense the die hard Trump supporters are quickly becoming disillusioned over on Zero hedge.
Yes, Hillary would have been SO much better…..sure.
If you didn’t vote for Trump because he was going to throw a tantrum in the markets, you should be pleased with these supposed choices.
If you though Hillary was going to make things SO much better because she was bought and PAID FOR by Wall Street, then yes, you should be proud of your Hillary vote.
I voted for Gary johnson.
Yes,Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street and others. Trump IS Wall Street.
Donald J Gecko, the self proclaimed King of Debt..
So, do you feel less responsible now?
California is 10% of the population – and a significant part of that other 90% is getting sick of them.
Support Calexit! Or maybe it should be called GetTheCalOutOfHere?
Driverless cars is just another government ploy to get the people to surrender more control to the government. Passivity is a state of mind.
They are conditioning all of us to be passive citizens allowing technology to rule our lives.
The coming cashless society will be another nail in our coffins. That way the government can manage our personal budgets for us. ha.
Just sit back. We’ll take care of you.
Yes, trains and planes were the insidious first step in that master plan. Public transportation is for sheeple, man.
The interstate commerce clause in the constitution give the Federal government the power to decide emission levels.
Can’t states mandate emission levels that are more strict than the federal mandate? If a vehicle’s emissions meet the state limit, then they’re guaranteed to meet the federal limit. Seems like that would be within the rights of the states.
Uhm, check the Republican Party platform: “The Tenth Amendment: Federalism as the Foundation of Personal Liberty (Top)
Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans. Hence the promise of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated;
the states and the people retain authority over all unenumerated powers. In obedience to that principle, we condemn the current Administration’s unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments in matters ranging from voter identification (ID) laws to immigration, from healthcare programs to land use decisions, and from forced education curricula to school restroom policies. We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of powers between the federal government and state governments — the governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people. We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local and state innovation.”
I’m all for relaxing onerous CAFE and emissions regulations, but it is should be within the rightful power of the state of California to set standards different than the federal ones. The federal government does have the authority to impose uniform standards, but that kind of central legislating is probably unwarranted here, and certainly implicates the Republicans’ preference for federalism.
Not really changing the subject BUT when Gov. moonbeam was in office the first time, he stopped highway and road improvements. He had some theory that if roads were bad, people would stop driving.
It didn’t work, and people forgot – or didn’t care – what a disaster he was the first time and put him back in charge. Now he is trying something new and trendy that can’t be a total loss, some people are making big buck on the program.
It still takes an hour to recharge an electric vehicle and barring some shattering technological development (graphene supercaps?) this won’t change. Maybe you can change batteries. Batteries last only 500 cycles then need to be replaced.
Then there’s the Teslas that did Note7 imitations writ large. Gasoline needs an ignition source. Lithium batteries can have thermal runaways (even sans accidents).
Oh, and CA is also barely getting by with brownouts in the summer if it gets too hot. How are they going to double the energy capacity (provided mainly by neighboring states!) if they don’t want fossil fuels to provide it?
Sorry, solar panels on the roof of the tiny cars won’t be enough. Nor will tilting at windmills work, assuming CA doesn’t care about slicing and dicing birds.
I need to point this out – most people don’t know our electric grid is near capacity, which isn’t a problem for now as increments can handle the power. We’d need to up the capacity if the Grid if the power isn’t going to be generated locally and CA isn’t likely to approve the gigawattage where it is most needed.
Ignore the self-driving for the moment, but a shift to electric vehicles will require a lot more Gigawatts and where will that come from? Intermittent wind and solar? Nuclear? Coal? Natural Gas?
Ah, I’ve figured something less bad to do with the subsidized Ethanol than use it as a vehicle fuel (A parallel might be flex-fuel vehicles that can do E85 – great if you are around Fargo, I think there is one station that has it in my state).
Manufacturers can just send to their micro cars to California, and only offer their big cars and SUVs to the rest of the nation. They make a variety of different models now anyway, to suit different consumer preferences.
I am so happy with climate change. Life on a glacier with no fuel to warm me up would be miserable. The people who believe in man made climate change have no grasp of history for the last 12000 years. The ebb and flow of civilizations was driven by warming and cooling cycles.
CO2 is not the problem, the real problem is the plummeting 02 levels. O2 levels in cities can get quite low and that is the cause for the major brain malfunctions in the big city liberal voters. They have been steadily dropping on Earth.
Seriously.
Electric cars are cool as long as they are not subsidized by the government. They have to stand on their own.