Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Coalition of States File Suit Against the EPA Over Emission and Fuel Economy Changes

      It is getting a bit messy

    The past month has been quite strenuous on the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Back in April, EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced they would be rolling back the fuel-efficiency regulations set towards the end of President Obama's tenure. The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver to set their own emission standards. A few days later, we reported that the officials from the White House, California, and automakers were trying to work out a possible emissions deal to prevent a legal fight. It seems those talks went nowhere as California along with sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have filed suit challenging the rollback.

    On Tuesday, the collation led by California filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the rollback. This group makes up 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.

    "The states joining today's lawsuit represent 140 million people who simply want cleaner and more efficient cars. This phalanx of states will defend the nation's clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution," said California Governor Jerry Brown in a statement.

    The suit alleges that the EPA decision to roll back the regulation lacked any scientific reason. The EPA is also accused of failing to follow its own regulations and violating the Clean Air Act.

    “This is California saying: You really want war? We’ll give you war. It’s a signal to the administration that they’re not going to get away with anything in this space,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign to the New York Times.

    According to Reuters, the Department of Transportation has a draft proposal of the changes that is expected to be released to the public later this month. The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026. The draft also asserts that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 bars California from imposing their own rules, even with the waiver. This proposal has already earned the ire of the public and various members of the U.S. Senate. One Senator, Tom Carper, D-Delaware obtained a copy of the proposal and sent a scathing letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Pruitt. 

    “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution, create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.

    There is a lot riding on this suit as it could possibly cause the U.S. to have two different emission regulations and automakers having to meet both of them.

    "Enough is enough. We're not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but when the stakes are this high for our families' health and our economic prosperity, we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to defend them,"  said Xavier Becerra, California state attorney general. 

    Yesterday, the White House announced that it will be meeting with leaders of the major automakers next week. The meeting will be talking about the planned changes to the fuel efficiency rules. It is expected that automakers will be trying to push the Trump administration and California to agree to a national standard.

    Source: New York Times, Roadshow, Reuters, (2), U.S. Senate (Carper's Letter)

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    What I don't understand is how California is the 6th largest economy in the world and they don't have coal mines and shale oil fracking, and they have high taxes, high regulation on pollution and guns, and legalized marijuna.    According to Fox News low taxes, fossil fuels and low regulation is the way to grow an economy.  ?   Worked wonders for West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi. 

    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  But California will win this lawsuit because of CARB and the fact that these rules were previously agreed to by auto makers.  And it wouldn't surprise me if California come 2030 bans sale of gasoline cars all together and then automakers have no choice but to go EV, because you can't ignore 40 million people in the richest state in the country.

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    well, this is what they want people in.  or they will tax the living sht out of you.  there's reason the ridiculous fuel economy standards are there.  punish you either way.  comply and drive the crackerbox or pay through the but in taxes and fines if you want a truck or something.

    Sad thing is the Ecosport is such a pile of crap with poor mpg and no power

     

     

    image.png

    Edited by regfootball
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe instead of an Ecosport, seek superior alternatives.  As for California vs. Pruitt's EPA, expect CA to win in court.  The only way Pruitt wins is if ALL emissions regulations and CAFE standards are repealed by Congress, and apparently there is no appetite for doing either one.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026.

    “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution,

     create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.

    Guess we're doing all those things right now; why'd they wait to sue?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    What I don't understand is how California is the 6th largest economy in the world and they don't have coal mines and shale oil fracking, and they have high taxes, high regulation on pollution and guns, and legalized marijuna.    According to Fox News low taxes, fossil fuels and low regulation is the way to grow an economy.  ?   Worked wonders for West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi. 

    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  But California will win this lawsuit because of CARB and the fact that these rules were previously agreed to by auto makers.  And it wouldn't surprise me if California come 2030 bans sale of gasoline cars all together and then automakers have no choice but to go EV, because you can't ignore 40 million people in the richest state in the country.

    So California was always high tax, and high regulation?

    you know CA is losing population and is fiscally unsound right? Why don't you compare CA to TX or Fl nstead of picking on WV? Which has always been poor.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    California paid $405 billion in taxes to the federal government in 2015, they are what drives the federal government, only 2 other states even topped $200 million (Texas and NY).

    And besides the economic influence, CARB was around before EPA, so CARB can do what ever it wants, CA won't change their rules, and in court California will beat the EPA.

    I think we should get rid of CAFE all together and raise federal gas taxes another 25-50 cents, and put that money into the crumbling roads we have.  

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    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.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Happy Monday ... may someone steal a Happy Meal for you ...
    • A lot of interesting factoids ... The number of plants producing the mid-1960s Impala were numerous, including 2 in SoCal (Van Nuys and South Gate) and 2 in Canada (Oshawa and St.-Therese).  Imagine that ... working on the line with a Francophone in a herringbone cap who breaks out a baguette for his snack break.  Then, other plants:  up in Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, and the Arlington TX (Dallas) plant that made a lot of Cutlasses. Engines were varied: 230 in line 6 (not the 250 yet), V8s like 283, 327, and a 409 that gave way to the 396.  I notice the absence of the 307 at this point. The great 350 came a few years later. - - - - - As far as Cutlass going from 1976 to 1977, they did a few stupid things, yet may have sold even more of them: - the waterfall grille up front got busier, thus uglier - they got rid of the spherical vents on the right side of the dash and made them rectangular as well - they went from a more traditional burgundy (for that type of color choice) interior to a red interior (called firethorn) and it was obnoxious  - they slimmed down the bucket seats in the Salon coupe quite a bit - drum roll:  the loss leader base engine went from an inherently  balanced 250 in line 6 in an uncrowded engine bay to an "odd firing" 231 V6 (in its last year as "odd firing") and the area in the back of the engine bay around the engine itself was crowded. They should have left that one alone.  No one should have had a nicely equipped Brougham model with an engine that had a faint shudder at idle. - and, of course, they raised the price a fair bit
    • * Life keeps getting in the way. Hope the holiday season was good for you. Visiting quickly today because... ...this past Saturday's CD SHOWCASE (01/18/2025) was also streamed live on WRMN's YouTube channel! However, I do not know how long it will be available. If you are interested, check it out soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QmpWWB0d-k   Website page for the 2025 shows: https://www.cdshowcase.com/2025-cd-showcase/   PEACE | Cort, pig and cow valves with pacemaker 2003 MGM LS + 1981 cmc SC; need 1975 Chrysler Cordoba "Count your blessings now 'fore they're long gone" | Pink | 'Who Knew'
    • Interesting bit of trivia.  I couldn't believe the numbers, but, with the arrival of foreign imports coming later, it could be conceivable. In the 1965 model year, they sold 1,074,925 Chevrolet Impalas. That's far more than the 514,000 Oldsmobile Cutlass sales in 1976.  I thought this was the peak.  They report that 632,000 were produced in model year 1977.
    • I love this era Ford, and this era of Mercury is amazing! One thoughtful question...     Also thoughtful  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search