EPA under Obama will revisit state emission laws
The decision on whether or not to allow states to enforce limits on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is moving back to center stage under the incoming Obama administration. Lisa Jackson, the President-elect's nominee for EPA administrator, has promised to "immediately revisit" the issue once she is confirmed for the office. During his election campaign, Obama promised he would allow states to each dictate their own rules towards greenhouse emissions. This puts the administration at odds with the automakers, which argue that it's a federal responsibility (along the same lines as regulating fuel economy). Most in the industry feel that having state-mandated greenhouse gas limits would add unnecessary costs to vehicles, and create problems for dealers located near state lines. The states, however, want the right to impose their own regulations. We've been watching this exhausting cage match for years, and the conflict doesn't show any signs of waning.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
xspeedy 7:08PM (1/15/2009)
NO NO NO!!!!! Are these states full of idiots?
It is bad enough that CA dictates their own emissions standards. Regardless, in such a scenario of each state having a different standard, automakers will build cars to whatever the toughest standard is.
What we need to do to boost the world (and especially domestic) auto industry is to have the US quickly adopt and accept (even if temporarily) European standards for auto safety and emissions. This will allow for fast track introduction of the more efficient European products we need (want) here including the small displacement direct injection turbo diesels.
When is government going to get it?
Reply
Jeff Banks 7:17PM (1/15/2009)
One of the big problems that car makers face when building cars for the European/Japanese/US car markets are the little things that have to be changed. For example, on a motorcycle in the US, laws dictate you have to have a safety cut off switch placed on the handlebars in a certain way where as European motorcycles have it in a different way. A tiny switch may seem like to big deal to a huge company like Honda, but for a tiny motorcycle manufacturer they would have to rework the wiring systems for each individual country AND California which has different standards than everybody else.
Alan 7:23PM (1/15/2009)
I dont agree. What ever happened to the word "United" in the United States of America? EPA emissions is a global issue and should be treated as such. It is a more significant difference if the country made decisions as a whole and not in particular states. Hopefully all states make smart choices although it is highly unlikely. In my opinion Obama is simply getting rid of the responsibility with the EPA standards.
Sea Urchin 7:29PM (1/15/2009)
Before calling states idiots study the issue.
States do not want to regulate vehicles, the reason they started doing this was because Bush administration did everything it could not to implement a single step in fight against global warming. Bush did the opposite. That is why those states joined CA. Simply look at Bush's environmental record, his fiscal record and Katrina record are far better than his environmental one.
That says something.
firstplace 8:06PM (1/15/2009)
its bad enough drivers licenses and registration and plates are different state to state now emissions too? WTF! that is small minded.
Concerned Citizen 8:09PM (1/15/2009)
One of the few powers that a federal government SHOULD take and they want to give this to the states, while illegally mandating a drinking using road funding as a ransom.
Good to see the kind of "change" we have coming...
Big Rocket 8:32PM (1/15/2009)
No, this isn't a case of 50 different states with 50 different emissions requirements. Far from it. In reality, it would be 17 or so states that collectively adopt California's stricter standard, and the rest of the nation who follow the EPA standard. Two standards, not 50.
For those who claim it would be a financial burden for automakers to produce two sets of vehicles to satisfy two different standards, there is a simple solution: Design all vehicles to the same stricter standard, and they would automatically pass the easier EPA standard. And before anyone claims it would somehow put the Big 3 at a disadvantage, consider the even bigger disadvantage of an American car market open to substandard third-world vehicles, if there were no standards such as emissions requirements, fuel efficiency requirements, crash test requirements, etc. to keep them at bay.
Autoblog, May 23, 2007: "California adopted a requirement declaring that automakers reduce their fleets' CO2 emissions... Eleven states have followed California's lead... six or so additional states are expected to adopt the same measures."
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/23/they-want-more-ca-petitions-to-raise-automaker-fleet-standard-t/
havoc 9:28PM (1/15/2009)
@rocket
in some cases the financial burden is placed on the consumer, some models have a fee for the 50state emissions (CA approved)
zamafir 10:16PM (1/15/2009)
"One of the few powers that a federal government SHOULD take and they want to give this to the states, while illegally mandating a drinking using road funding as a ransom.
Good to see the kind of "change" we have coming..."
Lol, I assume you have a PHD, graduated top of your class, and taught constitutional law as well? Oh wait, no, never mind. Give me call once u finish that PHD and we'll revisit which rights belong to the state under the constitution. I always love comments like this when our outgoing administration stripped states of the most rights of any administration on record and grew the federal government the most of any administration on record (and f*cked the economy the most as well). I'll go ahead and give this previously conservative notion of states rights a chance, especially when proposed by someone who, you know, taught constitutional law with their PHD and all.
Judy Zik 11:03PM (1/15/2009)
European standards? You might want to rethink that one. Didn't the Chinese manage to sell the Brilliance over there? Seems to me there are a lot of crap cars that make it through the European standards. It would be nice to see the everyone agree on a global standard (hopefully a high one) but don't hold your breath. We all can't agree to drive on the same side of the road or use Metric. Those two things would make a huge difference alone in cost to automakers.
It is pretty sad that California had to start a movement to different standards but it only happened because the feds weren't doing anything.
tekd 11:23PM (1/15/2009)
In reality the whining about how you have to make 2 sets of stuff is nonsense-they could very well just meet the stricter standards set on all their vehicles, but the problem is that that would cost them more money on emissions equipment.
The automakers don't actually want one federal set of rules that are strict enough to please all the states-what they want is basically to be able to build the more polluting vehicles for all the states. Which would actually be pretty disasterous for smog-prone areas of the country.
Anyways, personally I think one federal standard that's at or beyond whatever the strictest states want would be fine-the Euro standard is pretty strict as it is anyways and it's used across Europe and China (Japan's system is almost identical too). But again the automakers don't actually want that since it'll increase their costs.
xspeedy 9:47AM (1/16/2009)
Re: Judy Zik
I'm not sure about the Brilliance, but I believe that the vast majority of the cars there are safe. I would instantly put my family in a Ford Mondeo or European Ford Focus. Just remember that the US has had some unsafe vehicles as well. Most of our safety comes from not NHTSA, but from IIHS. Even if the Brilliance is sold here, let the buyer beware. It is ultimately the consumers responsibility to check the crash results. Just remember that the top selling vehicle (or at least one of) in the US performed like this. Yes it is a truck, but here in TX I see many of these hauling around families.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmADMthzm6U
Judy Zik 10:08AM (1/16/2009)
@xspeedy
Apples and Oranges. That is a pretty old F-150 as opposed to a new Chinese design. There are all kinds of new vehicles being sold in Europe that we would find shockingly inadequate safety wise. I think a global standard is a good thing but I think it needs to be higher than the European ones that have allowed some pretty questionable cars on the road.
Concerned Citizen 8:55PM (1/20/2009)
Hey, Zamfir, I suppose you DO have a PHD and care to correct exactly what was wrong with my comment? Of course the same administration you bashed had their shares of PHDs and Ivy League degrees. Hate to break it to you, but both parties together have worked to reduce the states power and grab more federal power, and if you don't understand that and think the president did it all, then you apparently failed 4th grade government class where they explain exactly how the 3 branches of our government work.
Take your condescending attitude and go back to playing the pan flute.
Vincenzo 7:24PM (1/15/2009)
Do I understand correctly that California will ban big SUVs, trucks, Ferraris, and other muscle cars because they produce twice as much greenhouses gases as Corollas?
Reply
xspeedy 8:12PM (1/15/2009)
California should just ban cars altogether and make people surf to work.
Michael 2:06AM (1/16/2009)
The emissions in question are carbon dioxide emissions - which are directly correlated with fuel economy.
A gallon of gasoline burned becomes 20 lbs of CO2. A gallon of diesel burned becomes 22 lbs of CO2.
Automakers won't make "separate" vehicles just for California. It's different from other types of emissions requirements (PM, VOCs, NOx, etc); there are no exhaust treatment systems that deal with CO2.
Californians would simply have fewer cars to choose from. The only Camry available will be the Hybrid model. BMW will only offer the 328i, not the 335i. Sales of sports cars, luxury sedans, and SUVs will be capped.
N 7:34PM (1/15/2009)
The European manufacturer's already struggle to modify their diesel vehicles to meet the stringent Californian emissions laws... And now that the dollar is pretty weak; why should they bother considering the US as a potential market if all the states want to set their own emissions standards?
This is bat sh#t crazy!!!
Reply
SNP 8:52PM (1/15/2009)
The US has the toughest safety standards in the world. This alone is the reason why china/india cant just produce vehicles here and unload a ton of crap on us. Why should the govt mandate EPA standards??? Because americans cant export our vehicles anywhere else. Our EPA standards are too low. China doesnt want our cars because of that. Europe doesnt want our cars. The only way we can sell our SUVs/Trucks/sedans in other countries is if our large vehicles are significantly more fuel efficient. When that happens, we will rule in auto manufacturing again. Imagine a ford fusion, being sold in China because it can run at 35mpg in a few years? Or a Taurus that can run at 30mpg. Or the Explorer/Suburban that can hit up to 30mpg. Combine that with almost zero emissions and they will eat up american products. Because we all know europe/japan/china dont have these large vehicles.
Dont raise gas taxes. Boost EPA standards. If we push it up to 50mpg by 2030, in a large vehicle with near zero emmissions, people will start buying american autos abroad.
Dan 9:25PM (1/15/2009)
SNP... right, vehicles people actually want with 50 mpg and zero emissions are just one new law away.
God save us from ideologues.