This Thursday has been is the date for a big meeting between the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) that represents General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler LLC, Toyota Motor Co., BMW, Volkswagen, Daimler-Benz, Mazda and Nissan North America. Though Arnie was once a HUMMER drivin' fool and unofficial pitch man for the poster SUV of environmental incorrectness, he's now the gubernatorial head honcho of a state that's been a big PITA for automakers when it comes to emissions standards. California once had federal approval to set its own emissions standards, and the feds also allowed any other states to adopt California's standards instead of much weaker federal standards if they wanted. Seventeen states now either have or are considering adopting California's emissions standards, which means automakers are faced with the dilemma of possibly building two versions of every vehicle to meet both standards, go bankrupt trying to meet California's standards in time, or even not selling vehicles in those 17 states at all.
The federal government's new energy bill that calls for a raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020 is what the AAM wants to talk to the Governator about. The AAM hopes to convince Arnold that meeting the new federal standards will be difficult but doable, while California's proposed standard of 40.5 mpg by 2016 is impossible to achieve without losing thousands of jobs and possibly bankrupting vulnerable automakers.
Schwarzenegger is not likely to buy the alliance's argument, however, and this conflict between the automakers and California will likely be settled in federal court a long time down the road.
[Source: Detroit Free Press, Photo by David McNew/Getty]
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
IIHS releases official results on the smart fortwo
Tragedy at LeMons: Send love and a little bit more
Officially Official: New Ferrari California exposed!
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
George @ May 6th 2008 2:15PM
If any of you is intrested in what the exact sales for all of General Motors cars and trucks were here is the link. These are last months numbers:
http://www.reliableplant.com/article.asp?pagetitle=General%20Motors'%20total%20sales%20for%20April%20down%20sharply&articleid=11726
SkiD666 @ May 6th 2008 2:26PM
And your link has what to do with this story?
Todd @ May 6th 2008 2:35PM
virus don't click
George @ May 6th 2008 2:36PM
First of all its noit a virus. Second of all its just for your info. Thats all. Whats the big deal. I like seeing sales breakdowns and Autoblog doesnt provide it so I just put it here.
Amber @ May 6th 2008 2:39PM
Thanks for the post George nice to see the Saturn Aura up
Seminole @ May 6th 2008 2:39PM
But what does this have to do with an article talking about gas mileage?
It would be better served if you put it in the "GM lost XX amount in the first quarter" thread.
George @ May 6th 2008 2:42PM
My god nevermind. I ran into the article on the web and tossed it here on Autoblog. Jeez
Mr. Oak @ May 6th 2008 2:53PM
Thanks George, I look forward to these every month.
C.W. @ May 6th 2008 3:53PM
george. stick to the post content. unless you are going to post for every automaker dont bother because some of us couldnt care less how abysmal GMs numbers were... others of us are quite well aware.
Seminole @ May 6th 2008 4:54PM
George,
I think it was a good thing you posted that for those who would be interested. All I was saying is that you may reach more of the people who would be interested in the information by posting it on a related topic.
YouFaceTheTick @ May 6th 2008 2:15PM
"California's emissions standards, which means automakers are faced with the dilemma of possibly building two versions of every vehicle to meet both standards, go bankrupt trying to meet California's standards in time, or even not selling vehicles in those 17 states at all."
No, the automakers should simply build to satisfy California's (and 16 other states') standards. There's no reason to build two types. Pick the most stringent and build for that market. 1 version. The federal government is limp-wristed.
CA has the right to do this because CARB pre-dates the EPA by many years. CARB did something the feds were too myopic to consider: they tried to deal with air quality.
Bruxell @ May 6th 2008 2:28PM
No CARB has no right to do this because federal law supersedes state law at all levels. California has no option but to accept the federal levels unless granted a waiver. Also, these standards aren't going to accomplish anything because they do nothing to take the 1.6 billion people in China off coal power. Read something.
tj @ May 6th 2008 2:35PM
1 in 8 americans live in california - that's a lot. figure the other 15 states on board and that's a significant portion of the population. on its own, CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. there's no way that any car maker could give up on CA.
However, I do think that the result of CARB proposals will be a severe restriction on the types of cars available in CA. Manufacturers simply wont be shipping us their SUVs anymore (and the limited ones they do ship will cost ridiculously marked-up prices) and we'll be sing the lion's share of ford focuses and chevy cobalts. So in that way, CA gets what it wants with mileage improvements, carmakers dont really end up changing, and the consumer just gets a whole lot less choices.
Dan @ May 6th 2008 2:53PM
"There's no reason to build two types."
If a competing automaker does build two types, people living in the other 32 states won't buy very many of your Cali-spec clowncars.
Disgruntled Goat @ May 6th 2008 2:55PM
CARB probably can do this despite what the federal judges commenting here on Autoblog say. Time will tell. And this rule will have no affect on what can or cannot be bought in California. It didn't have an affect in 1970 and it won't have an effect today, 40 years later. On the contrary, it should make a considerable difference in the quality of air you and your family breathe. The previous laws already did.
YouFaceTheTick @ May 6th 2008 3:06PM
Federal law supersedes state law? What the hell happened to the the parties that states' rights is now a liberal issues?
China isn't part of the USA. California's CARB was grandfathered in and allowed to make their own air quality laws, with a rubber-stamp from the feds - a courtesy stamp. Until the Bush admin trampled on states' rights and said, no more freedom to California or any state that legally had a right to follow California's air quality laws.
If not for carb we wouldn't have the catalytic converter or maybe even air pollution laws.
johncuyle @ May 6th 2008 3:32PM
States' rights don't mean that the federal government has no authority. States' rights means that the states have sole authority to legislate on any topic which the Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to legislate on. Interstate commerce is one of the federal government's enumerated powers, which is why you hear states' rights people (more accurately, people who have read the constitution and think we should probably pay some attention to it) saying that CARB should not have what effectively amounts to the authority to dictate automotive design practices for the remaining 49 states. Of course, we'd also say that the federal government greatly oversteps their authority authority to regulate interstate commerce by dictating automotive design, but that's another issue. No matter how you cut it, if there's an authority to say what sort of car is acceptable for sale to the US population, it doesn't live in California.
tekdemon @ May 6th 2008 5:16PM
johncuyle, if they (and the other 16 states btw) have the right to regulate their own pollution, it's not at all California's problem how the automakers choose to solve the problem.
Anyways, those 17 states are also some of the most populous states, since pollution is a much bigger problem in the more densely lived in states, so even though it's 17 states it makes up a much larger proportion of the US population.
elprogramer @ May 6th 2008 2:22PM
Then they should remove themselves from California. The asians are heavily invested there, no? As is GM with Toyota as NUMMI.
They have their games, we have ours.
Seminole @ May 6th 2008 2:41PM
They kind of already have. Didn't a bunch of automakers move their design studios to the east coast?