# California Stripped of Right to Have Stricter Automobile Fuel Mileage Standards



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The US President declares war against the concept of AGW, and continues crusade to reverse all previous policies, whether good or bad. But it's surely not personal.....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49746701


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In an example of different media outlets getting slightly out of sync with the details of a story, sharp-eyed observers will note that the BBC story quoted speaks of "emission standards", whereas last evening's totally business-oriented Nightly Business Report on PBS told it as a story about mileage per gallon. Yet the basic story remains the the attempt to take away California's ability to set higher, more environment-friendly regulations for vehicles sold within its borders. To be contrasted with this minor discrepancy in reportage is the President's assertion that by stripping California of future stronger rules, cars will be "safer".


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

God Bless President Trump! Thank you, Sir, for working for all American citizens. :tiphat:

Also, Strange Magic, TC has political forum groups where this should have been posted.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forsooth said:


> God Bless President Trump! Thank you, Sir, for working for all American citizens. :tiphat:
> 
> Also, Strange Magic, TC has political forum groups where this should have been posted.


I could not agree with you more! You will note perhaps that I have made this same point about posting in the Political Groups maybe a dozen times now over the years. But the Management of TC has tacitly agreed that such stories now be a regular part of Community Forum, with esteemed and longtime member KenOC often supplying the initial catalyst for interesting and often intense discussions of contentious issues in politics and the policy aspects of science. As an opinionated babbler myself, I will not unilaterally disarm and voluntarily mute myself, but will join in vigorously, and, as now, follow in Ken's large footsteps by initiating a topic. Wish me luck!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

We do have a policy of requiring political and religious posts to be placed in the Groups area. We do recognize that the Groups are not heavily trafficked, so many threads get little attention. Recently we have tried to be more lenient about threads that are not "excessively political/religious" (obviously that term is a bit hard to define and there's no clear demarcation). There have been recent threads which are primarily science related but which can slip into policy and from there into politics. If threads remain focused on the science and policy aspects and generally keep from getting into pure politics, we would like to allow them on the main forum. If posts drift to much into pure politics or if members violate the ToS, we may close the thread. 

All Community Forum threads must be approved by the moderators. We did discuss whether this one would become too political and decided to allow it. We would ask that the discussion focus on fuel economy standards, policies to increase fuel economy, and the effect on AGW rather than the politicians themselves.


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> All Community Forum threads must be approved by the moderators. We did discuss whether this one would become too political and decided to allow it. We would ask that the discussion focus on fuel economy standards, policies to increase fuel economy, and the effect on AGW rather than the politicians themselves.


...ight den. My take on the non-political stuff is that it is a legal question, plain and simple. Something like: Can one populous state, or a small group of populous states, set policy that goes beyond Fed Law and Regulations and that negatively impacts all or most all other states?

*California Has a Weak Case in Emissions Fight With Trump
It doesn't really make sense to let one state set policy for the whole country.
*
"...The answer turns out to be more complicated than you might think. California's practices do have a strong basis in a federal law created to let the state fight smog. Yet California may have gone beyond this original mandate and become a regulator acting on par with the federal government - a strange deviation from the norms of U.S. federalism. The issue may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, and with its current conservative majority, the court could very well decide in favor of Trump."

*Article here.*


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

Forsooth said:


> ...ight den. My take on the non-political stuff is that it is a legal question, plain and simple. Something like: Can one populous state, or a small group of populous states, set policy that goes beyond Fed Law and Regulations and that negatively impacts all or most all other states?
> 
> *California Has a Weak Case in Emissions Fight With Trump
> It doesn't really make sense to let one state set policy for the whole country.
> ...


It has been this way for at least 40 years, I believe. Car manufacturers have either sold cars with a "California emissions package" or they have made all cars conform just to avoid the inefficiency associate with producing two versions of each car.

Because of a lot of automobile use and geographic features, California has in the past had huge problems with air quality due to auto emissions. Currently the air quality is much improved despite dramatically more cars on the road. Putting aside the question of legal authority, why would anyone want to interfere with that outcome?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It does become a political question, especially if the argument is made that California's standards in fact "negatively impact all or most all other states"? Many Red states are now passing laws forbidding cities and other units within those states from passing laws aimed at offering equal protections to the LGBT community, or mandating stricter gun laws, than state law authorizes. These curbs appear to actually negatively impact whole populations of those seeking legal protections from marketplace or employment bigotry, or greater freedom from contact with guns in public places.

We need also consider that for decades, the state of Texas has effectively controlled ("dumbed down") school textbook content nationwide on such issues as evolution because of its purchasing power over textbook publishers, who, like car makers, would much rather print one and only one version of a book. So if there is to be a shift toward or away from state power v. federal power, the effects should and will have repercussions beyond those immediately seen at hand. Political power will, though, ultimately determine what paths are chosen in each case. Make sure to vote (if they'll let you)!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

(Deleted) .....................……...


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I'm open to correction, but I believe the improvement in SoCal air quality over the years has been due to federal emission and other standards, not to anything enacted in California. Unfortunately, the air quality in the southern central valley, in places like Fresno, has grown much worse because of the burgeoning population there. I imagine that it's problems like those that make CA want to require stricter emission standards.


My understanding is that California emissions standard are part and parcel with federal standards, with somewhat more stringent limit on carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. To that extent they improve air quality in California. The original motivation, I believe, was very bad air quality in the Los Angeles region, going back to the 1960's.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

If the overall legislation that enacted the emission standards was federal, I don't see why any particular state should have the ability to run their own separate regime, thus pre-empting federal authority in the matter. Essentially California control the rest of the nation in this way, and I think it is absolutely wrong that one state should be given such authority. If you want federally binding legislation, presuming it is constitutional, then pass federal legislation - don't give one specific state an exception to independently control it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> My understanding is that California emissions standard are part and parcel with federal standards, with somewhat more stringent limit on carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. To that extent they improve air quality in California. The original motivation, I believe, was very bad air quality in the Los Angeles region, going back to the 1960's.


I believe that's right. I was in LA in 1962-63 and can testify that the air was FAR worse then than now. Fresno, though, has grown from 134,000 in 1960 to over 530,000 now, and sits in the bottom of the soupy bowl of our central valley. It now has some of the worst air in the country.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> If the overall legislation that enacted the emission standards was federal, I don't see why any particular state should have the ability to run their own separate regime, thus pre-empting federal authority in the matter. Essentially California control the rest of the nation in this way, and I think it is absolutely wrong that one state should be given such authority. If you want federally binding legislation, presuming it is constitutional, then pass federal legislation - don't give one specific state an exception to independently control it.


We're working our way through such power struggles when dealing with LGBT issues, Freedom to Discriminate on Religious Grounds issues, abortion rights, guns, etc. where federal, state, and local governing bodies have differing views, exacerbated by varying degrees to which legislatures (principally the US Senate) truly reflect the will and wishes of the people.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forsooth said:


> God Bless President Trump! Thank you, Sir, for working for all American citizens. :tiphat:


Amen! Dirtier air, land and water is a small price to pay for the illusion of a booming economy. When Forbes publishes the news on the world's first trillionaire we'll know for sure we're making progress.


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> We're working our way through such power struggles when dealing with LGBT issues, Freedom to Discriminate on Religious Grounds issues, abortion rights, guns, etc. where federal, state, and local governing bodies have differing views, exacerbated by varying degrees to which legislatures (principally the US Senate) truly reflect the will and wishes of the people.





starthrower said:


> Amen! Dirtier air, land and water is a small price to pay for the illusion of a booming economy. When Forbes publishes the news on the world's first trillionaire we'll know for sure we're making progress.


I knew this would get political very quickly.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forsooth said:


> I knew this would get political very quickly.


The topic is political. Should we talk about the weather? I've got nothing else to say about it. This should be in the Groups section.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

DrMike said:


> If the overall legislation that enacted the emission standards was federal, I don't see why any particular state should have the ability to run their own separate regime, thus pre-empting federal authority in the matter. Essentially California control the rest of the nation in this way, and I think it is absolutely wrong that one state should be given such authority. If you want federally binding legislation, presuming it is constitutional, then pass federal legislation - don't give one specific state an exception to independently control it.


California didn't preempt federal authority by imposing standards over other states or by waiving federal regulations. They simply wrote additional regulations which impose somewhat stricter standards for cars sold in California. Auto manufacturers are free to provide a different emission system for CA sale, design an emission system that passes CA requirements for sale throughout the U.S., or withhold a car from the CA market if it doesn't meet CA standards. I remember in the bad old days of American "muscle cars" the highest horsepower engine options were sometimes not available in California.

I don't see that it can be "unconstitutional" for a state the have business regulations that apply within its jurisdiction which are not identical to those in other states. If there is a legal issue, it would a specific one with the Clean Air Act, which imposed uniform standards and seems to have provided a mechanism for a state to request permission to customize the restrictions. I don't think California is the only state with a waiver. In New York the customary "smog check" is waived in rural counties. I presume they must have requested permission from the EPA to have the benefit of the additional contamination of the air resulting from that waiver.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some background: In the 1960s, California was leading the nation in working to reduce auto emissions (under Gov. Reagan). Recognizing California's work, Congress granted California a "waiver" from national standards - they could require stricter standards if they could demonstrate "a compelling reason for why they were needed." The waiver appears to require periodic renewals and, evidently, can be rescinded by the EPA.



> In late 2007, the George W. Bush administration denied California a waiver on the grounds that capping carbon dioxide emissions did not address a specific air pollution problem for the state.
> 
> "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules, to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles," said Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA's administrator at the time.


California and others challenged the denial, but before the courts ruled Obama was elected and the EPA, under new leadership, granted the waiver. So this is not all new. And no, California never had a "right" to set its own tailpipe standards -- it had a waiver.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Amendment X
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.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> Amendment X
> 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.


Yes, it wins the "Most Ignored Amendment" prize! The country would be a far different place if people took this one seriously.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

KenOC said:


> California and others challenged the denial, but before the courts ruled Obama was elected and the EPA, under new leadership, granted the waiver. So this is not all new. And no, California never had a "right" to set its own tailpipe standards -- it had a waiver.


California had an implicit right to set tailpipe standards, which was curtailed by federal environmental regulations, which was restored by a waiver allowed by the EPA, which can be rescinded. It is quite possible the EPA is within the law in withdrawing the waiver, but I don't see the wisdom in it. Aren't conservatives supposed to be in favor of giving local authorities more leeway to address local problems. Well, unless it runs afoul of the petroleum industry...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> California had an implicit right to set tailpipe standards, which was curtailed by federal environmental regulations, which was restored by a waiver allowed by the EPA, which can be rescinded.


I believe that's quite correct. I misspoke when I wrote that California never had a "right". Prior to the federal regulations, it had that right.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Amendment X
> 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.


I was going to bring up that same point. Did I miss something and the founding fathers placed pollution control under Federal control? My understanding was that they gave the Federal government control over things that affected the security of the union, levying taxes to support the government and defense etc. and anything not specifically defined as being under the auspices of the federal government was a state right to control.

California, had/has specific and increasingly dangerous pollution problems such as in the Los Angeles area which is a basin partly surrounded by mountains. The increasing car-driving population combined with stagnant polluted air with a high ozone content (called an inversion layer) in the basin resulted in throat-stinging smog to the extent that you couldn't even see the mountains in the summer. Why this would not be a matter to be addressed primarily by the state is beyond me.

(Los Angeles area pollution has decreased in a major way since before the 90s, but is on the rise again.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I was going to bring up that same point. Did I miss something and the founding fathers placed pollution control under Federal control?


One could ask the same about transportation, education, poverty, reproductive rights, energy, agriculture, and a host of other areas that the states have ceded to the central government over the years. We're well beyond the point of no return.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> One could ask the same about transportation, education, poverty, reproductive rights, energy, agriculture, and a host of other areas that the states have ceded to the central government over the years. We're well beyond the point of no return.


Many of these transfers of responsibility from states to the federal government occurred during the New Deal/Great Depression era when a weak federal government and bumbling, fumbling states were shown to have utterly failed the American people. The changes were the result of the non-ideologically-driven or fettered experimentation by the New Dealers to find what worked. Civil rights is another story of failure on all levels but finally begun to be addressed by the federal government. The documentary on Reconstruction and its aftermath by Henry Louis Gates on PBS is essential but disturbing viewing. There is no going back.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> California had an implicit right to set tailpipe standards, which was curtailed by federal environmental regulations, which was restored by a waiver allowed by the EPA, which can be rescinded. It is quite possible the EPA is within the law in withdrawing the waiver, but I don't see the wisdom in it. Aren't conservatives supposed to be in favor of giving local authorities more leeway to address local problems. Well, unless it runs afoul of the petroleum industry...


Not when you have specific carve outs in federal legislation that gives a particular state more powers than others.

But I am all for the 10th amendment - eliminate the EPA and leave this all up to individual states.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

KenOC said:


> One could ask the same about transportation, education, poverty, reproductive rights, energy, agriculture, and a host of other areas that the states have ceded to the central government over the years. We're well beyond the point of no return.


****** We are absolutely not beyond the point of no return. We are really only one Supreme Court ruling away from most of those things. Because that is how we got to that point.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> We do have a policy of requiring political and religious posts to be placed in the Groups area. We do recognize that the Groups are not heavily trafficked, so many threads get little attention. Recently we have tried to be more lenient about threads that are not "excessively political/religious" (obviously that term is a bit hard to define and there's no clear demarcation). There have been recent threads which are primarily science related but which can slip into policy and from there into politics. If threads remain focused on the science and policy aspects and generally keep from getting into pure politics, we would like to allow them on the main forum. If posts drift to much into pure politics or if members violate the ToS, we may close the thread.
> 
> All Community Forum threads must be approved by the moderators. We did discuss whether this one would become too political and decided to allow it. We would ask that the discussion focus on fuel economy standards, policies to increase fuel economy, and the effect on AGW rather than the politicians themselves.


The groups are not heavily trafficked, that is true. But I think that should be a notice to those in them that maybe they are not very welcoming to people. As I have mentioned in other places, I think the minimal traffic in the political groups in particular is not because people don't know they exist, or how to get to them, so much as most don't want to participate in the political discussion, and those that do end up just getting shouted down and decide it isn't worth their time. I would hate if they started to creep upstairs again - I'm trying to keep my comments on here related more to policy, and not political gainsaying and partisan scoring. I'm done with those things on this forum, and arguing with the same people.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I agree with the Good Doctor about the efficacy of a notice in the Political and the non-sectarian Religion Group that people frightened or disoriented by views different from their own should avoid those Groups. Many areas of policy today, especially those impinging upon political decisions with repercussions on economics, science, civil rights, and religious practices, raise important issues that continue to be thrashed out both in public discourse and the voting booth. Those with delicate constitutions should eschew becoming thus involved in the Groups.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My understanding is similar to others here that California has the authority to set a second set of standards within the US. Roughly 13 other states have aligned with the California standards. 

I'm more interested in why California has pushed for stricter standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the California EPA is tasked with ensuring that California meets the US EPA air quality standards. Under the present regulations, California will be out of compliance with the 2023 and 2031 air quality standards. CARB is pursuing stricter regulation to reduce criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides or NOx, hydrocarbons, particulates, etc.) especially in the trucking sector in order to meet the tighter standards. They have asked US EPA to enact stricter national NOx standards for trucks. CARB believes that if US EPA does not enact these standards nationally then CARB will be forced to enact these standards in California. Further, CARB believes that without mandating zero-emission trucks (along with their light-duty zero emissions mandate) California will not be compliant with the 2031 standards. 

The bottom line is that the nation has required states to meet air quality standards that are very difficult for some regions (e.g. near Los Angeles). The only way to meet these standards is to enact regulations such as increased fuel economy, decreased criteria pollutant emissions, or zero-emission vehicles. 

When the US or states have increased fuel economy standards, they have done so to reduce oil imports, greenhouse gases, or help reduce criteria pollutants. Estimates of fuel savings generally are expected to outweigh any increases in vehicle cost.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

Imagine that, California has objective reasons to regulate emissions, rather than ideology, or scoring political points...


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> My understanding is similar to others here that California has the authority to set a second set of standards within the US. Roughly 13 other states have aligned with the California standards.
> 
> I'm more interested in why California has pushed for stricter standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the California EPA is tasked with ensuring that California meets the US EPA air quality standards. Under the present regulations, California will be out of compliance with the 2023 and 2031 air quality standards. CARB is pursuing stricter regulation to reduce criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides or NOx, hydrocarbons, particulates, etc.) especially in the trucking sector in order to meet the tighter standards. They have asked US EPA to enact stricter national NOx standards for trucks. CARB believes that if US EPA does not enact these standards nationally then CARB will be forced to enact these standards in California. Further, CARB believes that without mandating zero-emission trucks (along with their light-duty zero emissions mandate) California will not be compliant with the 2031 standards.
> 
> ...


I have issues with that, though. True, when you look at the total life of a vehicle, you may see those savings. But the issue is whether you can better manage a bigger cost spread out over a longer period of time or a higher up front cost - and that is the rub. Poorer people can't afford that higher up front cost for a car, but can afford to pay more in gas. What ends up happening is that only wealthier people are able to buy these new hybrid or electric vehicles. Poorer people can't afford them. How many lower middle class people do you see driving Teslas? If you then restrict sale of the cheaper cars, then the poorer people end up having to hold onto their older, less efficient, more polluting vehicles for longer.

My main issue, though, is the idea that you write national legislation and then give various states waivers. Remember when they tried a lot of that crap with Obamacare? The "Louisiana Purchase?" The "Cornhusker Kickback?" If the legislation is not going to work at the federal level without allowing waivers to this state or that state, then maybe it doesn't need to be handled at the federal level, and you should allow the states to address it - which is de facto what you have now. So get rid of the federal legislation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> ...If the legislation is not going to work at the federal level without allowing waivers to this state or that state, then maybe it doesn't need to be handled at the federal level, and you should allow the states to address it - which is de facto what you have now. So get rid of the federal legislation.


One problem with this approach is that states may decide to compete for new industry by relaxing standards. "If you build your factories here, you can put as much c**p into the air as you want." "If you move here, you can pollute that river to your heart's desire." In fact, developing countries have often adopted just this strategy.

But that now-polluted river flows south into the next state, who won't be at all happy. And those smokestack emissions will cause acid rain to fall to the north. In short, in some cases, it's well to remember that we all live in the same house.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

KenOC said:


> One problem with this approach is that states may decide to compete for new industry by relaxing standards. "If you build your factories here, you can put as much c**p into the air as you want." "If you move here, you can pollute that river to your heart's desire." In fact, developing countries have often adopted just this strategy.
> 
> But that now-polluted river flows south into the next state, who won't be at all happy. And those smokestack emissions will cause acid rain to fall to the north. In short, in some cases, it's well to remember that we all live in the same house.


Except that if a state becomes unpleasant for living, people move. It isn't the same as a poor country, where so many really can't leave. States are always competing to draw people to them.

But that gets to my original point - if you want the national legislation, then make every state abide by it equally, one standard for all.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Nice chap, your president. 

Then again, with our PM, let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I have issues with that, though. True, when you look at the total life of a vehicle, you may see those savings. But the issue is whether you can better manage a bigger cost spread out over a longer period of time or a higher up front cost - and that is the rub. Poorer people can't afford that higher up front cost for a car, but can afford to pay more in gas. What ends up happening is that only wealthier people are able to buy these new hybrid or electric vehicles. Poorer people can't afford them. How many lower middle class people do you see driving Teslas? If you then restrict sale of the cheaper cars, then the poorer people end up having to hold onto their older, less efficient, more polluting vehicles for longer.


In general poorer people do not buy new cars. I think roughly 50-60% of consumers purchase new vehicles. The others purchase used cars or do not drive. Of course, if newer cars cost more, used cars will as well, but I read that new cars have increased in value lately by 4%/year while used cars have increased only 2%/year. Much of the increase in new car prices have nothing to do with regulation and are related to increases in power, accessories, or other features.

Still lower emissions does cost more, and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) tend to cost significantly more. The expectations are that ZEVs will decrease in cost, and some people I work with believe that they will be cost competitive with the conventional vehicles capital cost by 2030. I don't believe that, but I'm not a cost expert.

There are programs to compensate poorer consumers by buying back their old vehicles so thay can purchase new ones (Cash for Clunkers), but there's not enough money to get most of the older vehicles off the road.

Transportation is probably the most difficult sector to de-carbonize - especially trucks. The goal used to be an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but now it's a 100% reduction (i.e. net zero carbon emissions) by 2050 to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 C. That will be incredibly difficult for transportation, but it's certainly technically possible.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> In general poorer people do not buy new cars. I think roughly 50-60% of consumers purchase new vehicles. The others purchase used cars or do not drive. Of course, if newer cars cost more, used cars will as well, but I read that new cars have increased in value lately by 4%/year while used cars have increased only 2%/year. Much of the increase in new car prices have nothing to do with regulation and are related to increases in power, accessories, or other features.
> 
> Still lower emissions does cost more, and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) tend to cost significantly more. The expectations are that ZEVs will decrease in cost, and some people I work with believe that they will be cost competitive with the conventional vehicles capital cost by 2030. I don't believe that, but I'm not a cost expert.
> 
> ...


How much of a reduction in carbon emissions have they achieved thus far? I'm also skeptical. But then politicians like to promise things they know they can't possibly bring about.

Cash for Clunkers was a flop. It paid people who were already going to upgrade their cars, or they traded in junkers that weren't even in use. And then they gave tax breaks for buying hybrids and electric vehicles that only the wealthy were able to buy - tax breaks for the rich that nobody likes to talk about.

As I understand it, the rise of hybrids and electric vehicles had also simultaneously brought about the rise of large pickup trucks and SUVs - the hybrids and electrics aren't making them money, but the trucks and SUVs are big money makers, cause that is what people want. They have to build the hybrids and electrics to meet the average mpg requirements for their fleets, but need the trucks to make up for what they lose on the low emission vehicles.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> As I understand it, the rise of hybrids and electric vehicles had also simultaneously brought about the rise of large pickup trucks and SUVs - the hybrids and electrics aren't making them money, but the trucks and SUVs are big money makers, cause that is what people want. They have to build the hybrids and electrics to meet the average mpg requirements for their fleets, but need the trucks to make up for what they lose on the low emission vehicles.


I believe that pickups, vans, and SUVs are all part of the fleet that is subject to the average mileage requirement. Basically, the regulators are saying "You can make all the huge SUVs you want, so long as your overall fleet gets 50 mpg."


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I believe that pickups, vans, and SUVs are all part of the fleet that is subject to the average mileage requirement. Basically, the regulators are saying "You can make all the huge SUVs you want, so long as your overall fleet gets 50 mpg."


Yes, they are part of the fleets. And if it weren't for the profits they make off the pickups and SUVs, they couldn't afford to make the low emission vehicles.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> How much of a reduction in carbon emissions have they achieved thus far? I'm also skeptical. But then politicians like to promise things they know they can't possibly bring about.


California GHG emissions have been reduced by roughly 13% from 2007 through 2017. The reduction of GHG emissions/GDP is over 20% in those 10 years. The present law requires California to reduce GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2020. They reached that level in 2017. That was the easy goal. The same law requires a further reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I believe that pickups, vans, and SUVs are all part of the fleet that is subject to the average mileage requirement. Basically, the regulators are saying "You can make all the huge SUVs you want, so long as your overall fleet gets 50 mpg."


The cynicism is not entirely justified. The Pickups and SUVs are no match for a Prius, but they are getting more efficient. Ford will be selling a hybrid F-150 next year.


----------

