CARB Ready To Throw Down Against Pruitt On “Clean Cars” And Its Future With New Report

5 months ago by Jay Cole 78

Mary Nichol (CARB Chair), the "big dog" in the fight for EVs against new EPA boss Scott Pruitt

Mary Nichols (CARB Chair), the “big dog” in the fight for EVs against new EPA boss Scott Pruitt, talks up all things green!  (via @MaryNicholsCA)

There has been a lot of news of late about the EPA’s decision to speed up and finalize CO2/fleet mpg requirements in the US ahead for the time period of 2022-2025 – lest it be struck down and replaced with something far more favorable to automaker maker’s interests, courtesy of the new administration and famed EPA-suer, now EPA boss, Scott Pruitt.

Mary Nichols celebrates the Bolt EV's Car of the Year Award in Detroit

Mary Nichols celebrates the Bolt EV’s Car of the Year Award in Detroit

And there has also been a lot of recent talk surrounding Donald Trump’s controversial pick and his not-so-veiled comments about getting California’s Air Resource’s Board (CARB) harmonized under his thumb.

At Pruitt’s recent EPA confirmation hearing this week he said that he would not only open a review of the emission standards recently finalized by the agency he takes over, but also said he would review waivers that grant California the ability to impose stronger standards than the federal government.

Naturally, the response to that by (mostly Democrats) was not so positive.  Said California’s new senator Kamala Harris (via the Charlotte Observer).

“I have real concerns on where he will go on that issue, and others,” said Harris in an interview following the first half of the hearing. She said “it could do real harm to California” if Pruitt were to revoke California’s longstanding authority to limit auto pollution and greenhouse gases.

But CARB Chair Mary Nichols is one tough lady, and she is ready for the upcoming challenge to California’s mandate for cleaner cars, and the production of more and more zero emission vehicles.

/we love Mary

Further building a strong base of common sense (and science) of which to fight, CARB released a tidy 667 page “Midterm Review of (the) Advanced Clean Cars Program” in the state, that basically outlines that today’s automakers are hitting the benchmarks laid out for them, and are more than capable in the future of continuing doing so…and that in fact, the report suggests they are doing so well below the projected costs from when the program went into effect in 2012.

The report said today’s existing program in California “will add at least 1 million zero-emission vehicles on its roads and highways by 2025.”

Meet the opposition Mr. Pruitt

Meet the opposition Mr. Pruitt

“The recent Detroit auto show shined a spotlight on the fact that we are fully engaged in a global transformation towards autonomous vehicles, with hybrid cars an industry norm and electric models appearing across models and platforms,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols.

“Our standards need to recognize and keep pace with that market reality to keep California and the nation fully competitive in the global automobile marketplace. The conclusion is inescapable: California’s vehicle future is electric.”

And when fighting the establishment, why not try to take it up a notch at the same time?

CARB recommends going forward, that California double down on regulations considering that the transition to GHG reductions has gone so well.  Earlier in 2016, CARB laid out its “Mobile Source Strategy” document with plans on having 4 million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2030, and to also increase those recent GHG standards just put in place by the EPA.

To read (or attempt to read the full CARB report), one can check it out here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

78 responses to "CARB Ready To Throw Down Against Pruitt On “Clean Cars” And Its Future With New Report"

  1. ffbj says:

    Being right helps a lot, though it does not guarantee a victory. I am sure CARB will not be cowed.

  2. ClarksonCote says:

    CARB should stop promoting fuel cells so much. They’ll have more credibility and can use the regained resources to further fight Pruitt

    1. You’ll note that Mary made no reference to hydrogen at all in any of the correspondence.

      Of course, we know “electric powered” is CARB codename to include the hydrogen lobby, but I get the impression hydrogen isn’t winning any new friends these days. EVs are growing fast, and the rate is only increasing. Hydrogen can’t get out of the gate.

      For California to double down on hydrogen and have it fail ( extremely limited infrastructure, high distribution cost, high refueling cost that exceeds traditional fuels and grossly exceeds electricity cost, high vehicle cost, long time-lines for deployment, etc.) would likely set back the entire zero mission program.

      I can see the Trump folks capitalizing on how few hydrogen cars there are and how much money has been spent per car that is actually on the road. The simple fact that the very limited hydrogen cars are only in California, with maybe a handful and northeast states. adds fuel to the fire that California is out of touch and on the wrong path.

      EVs, in contrast, are relatively safe. Mary has taken the correct tone and use the correct words. If I were her I would be very careful in the words used for the next four years.

      I know I have expressed publicly some of the worst case scenarios that might affect the EV evolution. Having the federal government gut California’s exemption under federal law (that more than a dozen states follow) is one of those worst case scenarios.

      The auto manufacturers are working diligently to do just that.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        “but I get the impression hydrogen isn’t winning any new friends these days.”

        That’s encouraging, I hope you’re right. But I would like to see CARB remove the excessive credits they award compared to BEVs, as a starting point.

        1. James says:

          Here’s where Peter Thiel ( a member of the PayPal Mafia along with Elon Musk ) and Musk need to leverage their influence as people on Trump’s radar.

          Thiel is part of Trump’s transition team, and Musk was one of the tech leaders sitting at the table recently with Trump.

          Trump may not believe in global climate change, and he may be owing ( and to placate the Republican Party ) to Big Oil – but even more so, as an independent, he respects American business. Musk and Thiel need to convince Trump of the damage that would result in the implementing of new laws controlling California and snuffing out current MPG mandates.

          The angle I use most with Republicans = CLEAN AIR. Forget arguing about global warming. Talk about clean air, and disease + what it costs in health care costs per year and rising.

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            Very true. The great thing about plug-ins is that there’s really several dimensions of benefits to them. Whether someone is a Dempublican or a Republocrat, most people would be hard pressed to not be behind at least one of the benefits, be it cleaner air, global warming concerns, national security concerns, domestic jobs and domestic energy use, instant torque/acceleration, etc.

          2. Vexar says:

            The arguments for electric vehicles that ring well with conservatives are usually cost models, because minimally, a conservative will be fiscally conservative, and the rest of their self-identification will fall where it may. The American Lung Association write-up on electric vehicles would be my most prominent recollection. An astute person could link that ALA report to the rising cost of health insurance. It would take a bit more cleverness to make further connections, but EV ownership is cost-effective, today. There is the lower cost of ownership, then (well, Tesla at least) there is the resale story. I don’t know any conservatives tied to the oil or coal business, save one, but he did lots of things, briefly. Today, he’d be focused on solar, because that is where the money is.

          3. Lad says:

            Exactly; been doing that for years now. Additionally, we should take on the task of educating drivers about the advantages of EVs and if possible let them drive your EV. And, we need to broadcast the EV message on those media outlets that speak to ICEV drivers; and, educate them! The local newspaper with LTEs is a good starting place. All too often we preach to the choir on clean energy friendly media.

            I believe that EVs are so compelling that once a doubting Thomas drives one and feels the instant acceleration, he’s almost hooked or at the least learns enough to start asking the right questions.

            We have to sell folks on the benefits of EVs over ICVs; they must also get more for their money in an EV and I think we will be there starting 2018 when the M3 Tesla is available..

        2. CARB already eliminated the hydrogen super credit, starting next year.

          CARB-ZEV credits per vehicle:

          Starting Model Year 2018 (enacted 2016):

          Range per UDDS test protocol:

          Actual credit value is 1% of UDDS range plus 1/2 credit
          Example – 249 miles UDDS * 1% = 2.49 + 0.5 = 2.99
          This vehicle earns 2 credits
          No fast fueling credit

          350 miles range —- Credit per vehicle: 4
          250 miles range —- Credit per vehicle: 3
          150 miles range —- Credit per vehicle: 2
          50 miles range —– Credit per vehicle: 1

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            That’s great news, so no additional credit for fuel cell? I wonder what will happen to the Toyota Mirai?

            1. The Toyota hydrogen compliance game will continue though at least 2025, and maybe far longer. I do think that they’ll add a future compliance EV between 2020-2025, but I don’t see them giving up on hydrogen.

              Keep in mind that to get the full 4 ZEV credits requires either a hydrogen car (that they already have) or a car like the new Tesla 100D. So, there is still a premium to a hydrogen car for compliance.

              I can see GM making the Bolt a “350 mile UDDS” car just by replacing the 60ah cells with 94ah cells.

              1. Ambulator says:

                Does the Bolt use a 60 ah cell? I’ve never heard an ah figure quoted before.

                Funny coincidence, GM having a 60 kWh battery using 60 ah cells.

    2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Pruitt is proud of you keyboard warriors from Tesla fundamentalist club.
      EPA may be effectively dismantled but you still can’t resist going to holy war against everybody who doesn’t 101% adhere to your “our way or no way” dogma.

      1. terminaltrip421 says:

        do you get paid for this or are you just a miserable POS? I’m leaning towards the latter.

        1. ffbj says:

          How very astute of you to notice.

      2. I’m not sure who mentioned anything about Tesla, or what the heck it has to do with the federal government’s outright war with California, am I to presume that you are a hydrogen shill?

      3. ClarksonCote says:

        Since you’re replying to me, I’ll note that I’m not a member of any Tesla fan club. I do advocate for plug-ins, though usually I actually lean towards the Volt-type configuration until long range quick recharge EVs are readily available and affordable.

  3. Nick says:

    Having reality on your side is no guarantee of success! We’re post truth now.

    1. G2 says:

      True, sadly.

  4. SilveradoCyn says:

    CARB is trying to clean up the air in parts of California where the air quality does not meet EPA standards. If the EPA removes the authority that CARB has to meet the requirements, they will also have to lower the air quality standards. That would make no sense. Somehow the air has to be cleaner even with a growing population.

    1. ffbj says:

      Only partially correct. The authority to regulate pollutants also derives from the state.

      1. Nix says:

        ffbj — that is not correct at all. When Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, it was because of automotive industry fears of having to comply with 50 different sets of emissions laws.

        Nixon federalized emissions, with only one single Federal set of emissions standards. The law allowed only one state to set their own standards (California). No other state can set any emissions standards, they can only choose between the Federal standard, or the California standard. California doesn’t even have a “right” to set their own standards. They can only set standards different from the federal standards by applying for an EPA waiver from the federal standard. They can only enforce their own new standard after receiving waiver approval signed by the head of the EPA.

        That’s going to be Scott Pruitt the way it is looking.

        He will get briefed by the career EPA employees on what they advise, but their advice isn’t binding. He might ask Trump what he thinks, but not even Trump’s instructions are binding. If he does something Trump doesn’t like, Trump’s only recourse is to fire him, the President can’t actually force him to approve or disapprove a waiver.

        Pruitt and Pruitt alone and he alone will either approve or disapprove each waiver based on HIS signature.

        Only him being fired and replaced, or a federal court ruling can change that. And sadly, Trump will be choosing the majority Justice on the Supreme Court who would make the final decision on that ruling.

        1. Nathanael says:

          Incorrect. For a deep political reason which you may not understand.

          States, being officially *sovereign*, have *plenary power* to protect the health and safety of their own citizens. If the federal government attempts to take away that power in any instance, expect:
          (1) a long and slow court fight
          (2) the state enforcing its own regulations during the entire course of the court fight

          It’s actually extremely difficult for the federal government to override a determined state government. The state government has *more employees* and can enforce their regulations without the feds being able to do a damn thing about it. There’s a “you and what army” problem — and the feds are not going to send the army into California in order to protect smog-belching car dealers.

          1. Nathanael says:

            In short, if the federal government tries to not grant the waiver, California’s legislature can simply pass a law saying “we’re regulating new car sales anyway, **** you”, California’s police can enforce it, and the feds have no practical recourse to stop them.

          2. Nathanael says:

            You probably don’t know about this, but I have encountered several examples of state regulations which were declared in violation of federal law by federal courts and continued being enforced — successfully — by the state involved for *DECADES*.

            Really, if a state government is determined, the federal government is quite weak.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              You also have private capital that may be ready to go all the way up to Supreme Court (with majority appointed by Trump & Co), and it would end up the same way as last time when California attempted to push it too far, with compensation and interest.

              You may say that it would be stupid decision by private capital as it would damage its ability to compete worldwide, but who knows how it will evolve.

              1. There is another option to running off to court with bags full of cash to try and overturn something (that is likely to be a loser like in 2003).

                Just ignore the US government whereby the state continues to do what it does best; wait out the storm for the next favorable federal government. No court required.

                Would Trump send in some kind of federal enforcement? Anything is possible, but he’s not going to start a war over it or create a faction that pushes California out of the Union (intentionally).

                I think we can weather the storm.

            2. David Cary says:

              All a good point. I don’t understand all the rules and realities regarding states/federal government.

              Marijuana is the best example that everyone sees of states violating federal law and there being no recourse.

              We do know of course that the feds can use purse strings. 55 mph speed limit and 21 yo drinking age are the big ones I remember.

              But purse strings will be filibuster proof so that is probably a no go.

              Horray to the founding fathers for limiting the federal government so much!!!

              It all does throw the liberal view of activist federal government on its head, doesn’t it? I have to admit that I am all for state’s rights except when I disagree with them.

              1. Nix says:

                David, States have been allowed to have MJ programs because Obama AGREED to allow them to continue. If you are somehow confused about that, and somehow think that these states actually have a RIGHT to do it, you are incorrect. If the incoming administration wants to stop it, he cna stop it in a few hours with an order to raid every pot shop in every state.

                http://www.startribune.com/obama-won-t-go-after-marijuana-use-in-2-states/183487081/

          3. Nix says:

            And yet the Clean Air Act that federalizes pollution regulation has repeatedly been affirmed and re-affirmed over and over by SCOTUS as 100% Constitutional.

            That constitution you sit on in your back pocket doesn’t say what you think it says. So says SCOTUS. I think you have have it confused with the Articles of Confederation.

            State defiance of federal powers that specifically require state pre-clearance have especially poor record of success. The courts block laws like that while going through the courts, and have no problem arresting and jailing politicians who defy court orders. There is no need to send in the national guard and physically halt such a program. All they have to do is jail the head of CARB for contempt of court.

            1. Spider-Dan says:

              “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

              Ultimately it boils down to the whims of the executive.

        2. DonC says:

          Your analysis is correct but there are a few points worth considering. One is CA already has its waiver for model years extending through 2027. Second is that Massachusetts vs. EPA is now decided (stare decisis). Third is that Scalia dissented in Massachusetts vs. EPA, so replacing him with someone else wouldn’t change the result.

          1. Nix says:

            DonC — you don’t seem to understand the difference between a ruling on statutory basis, and a ruling on constitutional basis. That was a ruling on statutory basis.

            When SCOTUS makes a ruling on constitutional grounds, it is final UNTIL the US Constitution is amended. Once the Constitution is amended, then ALL SCOTUS rulings based upon something that has been amended or removed or repealed are all instantly and automatically vacated and no longer hold the force of law.

            When SCOTUS makes a statutory ruling, they are making a decision on how that statute should be executed. These rulings are ONLY final until the underlying statute is changed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Once the underlying statute is changed, then stare decisis no longer applies. The ruling is vacated and no longer holds the rule of law.

            The entire legal basis of the MASS V. EPA challenge instantly goes away, because the entire case was about HOW to enact the underlying law. Once the law itself is changed, MASS no longer has a case they can even take to the courts, no matter who is on the courts.

            ———

            It also doesn’t matter that CA already has a waiver for how CA wants to regulate CO2. Because CA’s right to regulate CO2 only comes from the MASS v. EPA case, and exists ONLY as an extension of the EPA’s mandate to regulate CO2 emissions. With the underlying law changed, BOTH the EPA and CA no longer have the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions.

        3. Rik says:

          Pruitt hasn’t been confirmed yet. There’s still hope that he won’t be. Call both of your US Senators and urge them to vote no on Pruitt for EPA

  5. William says:

    Hey, Scott Pruitt, congratulations on your new job! I look forward to seeing you accomplish more of your NEW agencies past hard work at keeping CARB focused on Its Zero Emission regulations, standards, and mandates. I have every faith, in your skill and ability, to resist the temptation of the Entrenched ICE OEM Lobbiests, and the BIG 9 Multinational Oil Corporations, each with revenues exceeding $200. Billion dollars, just in 2015 alone! I am counting on you, because I like to have a little cleaner air, water, and land! Hopefully it won’t be a problem, right?

    1. Based on his past actions and his current words, we have a fight on our hands.

      Hopefully things can be dragged out until there is no more Trump. But, obviously the next guy/girl can be just as big a question as Trump.

      I’m extremely confident that the state of California will use all the power and resources available to fight Trump and his new EPA cabinet member.

      The war begins at noon tomorrow.

      1. Nix says:

        The war has already begun. If you object to Pruitt, and you haven’t yet contacted your 2 Senators, you’ve essentially thrown in the white flag of surrender.

        Especially folks who are Republicans, and have Republican Senators. Because Pruitt can ONLY be stopped by Republican Senators refusing to vote for him. There is no Obama to stop the Republican Senate. There is no Democratic filibuster to stop the Republican Senate. It is entirely up to R’s to stop this if they want it stopped.

        1. William says:

          Surrender is not an option!

  6. DonC says:

    This doesn’t seem like a big concern. Once grated, a waiver is considered something of a vested right. To revoke it the waiver either has to have a sunset provision or the state has to be shown to have violated the terms and conditions of the waiver.

    Moreover, the EPA is legally REQUIRED to grant a waiver unless:

    1. California was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards;

    2. California ​does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions;

    or

    3. California has enacted standards and accompanying enforcement procedures which are not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

    One and three aren’t remotely in play, so it would have to be two: that California doesn’t compelling conditions.

    Good luck with that. You have decades of decisions saying the opposite, the Supreme Court’s recent cases have given states special deference when determining their needs, and all legal challenges would be heard by in the Ninth Circuit stacked with Obama appointees.

    Would make lawyers a lot of money though.

    1. Nix says:

      DonC

      The EPA only needs 1 thing to reverse everything. All they need is a bill to end the regulation of CO2 emissions.

      The R’s have been attempting to pass a bill like that since 2010, and so far have been blocked by Obama.

      But here is that law, with 107 Republican co-sponsors, which if stuffed into some other must-pass legislation as a “rider”, it would certainly be signed into law by the incoming President:

      https://palmer.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/gary-palmer-introduces-bill-stop-epa-overreach

      This would instantly nullify all laws and regulations tied to the regulation of CO2 emissions, and nullify the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling. Massachusetts v. EPA was decided on statutory grounds, not on constitutional grounds. SCOTUS only ruled on whether or not the EPA was following the statute correctly. If the underlying statute is changed by Congress, the SCOTUS ruling based on the old law is automatically vacated with respect to the revised statute.

      CARB’s ZEV program relied entirely upon the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling that required the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions.

      Finally, it doesn’t matter what the Ninth District rules. The final ruling will come from SCOTUS, with Trump now set to appoint the majority seat in that body, and may very well fill additional seats over the next 4 years.

      Is it impossible for the EPA under Pruitt to end California’s waivers under current laws and under the current court? Pretty much.

      Is it impossible for the EPA under Pruitt to end California’s waivers after this law is passed? Not at all. It becomes very easy.

      1. DonC says:

        No argument that legislation could change things. However, for legislation which is not part of budget reconciliation to pass, you need 60 votes in the Senate. Hard to see that happening.

        1. I believe the “nuclear” option can change that 60 vote Senate threshold.

          All the rhetoric above is based on the premise that everybody follows laws as intended. Hitler quite easily got around that mess by either calling for an “emergency”, or just blatantly violating rules.

          One of those rules was that Germany wasn’t even supposed to have much of an army after WW2… they built one anyway, and not some insignificant one… it was HUUUuuuuuge.

          Trump is starting out with the most advanced, powerful army in all of history. Emergencies are “easy” to make, just ask Putin… he might find an emergency in a Baltic state that needs “help” from Russia.

          While I think that Trump will do whatever he wants, regardless of messy rules, and that might include magically staying in power because we are in an “emergency”, should the law be changed and should the Trump stacked SCOTUS uphold it, a future law can be made that puts us right back on track in the future.

          We, sadly, are now an aberration to the direction the world is taking with respect to climate and pollution. Auto manufacturers CANNOT stop making emission compliant cars for the world.

          Yes, in California and the USA, we will likely lose the Fiat 500e, Ford Focus Electric, Mercedes B-Class ED, VW eGolf, and probably even the GM Bolt EV and all the hydrogen cars, all of which exist primarily because of CARB, however, neither Tesla nor Nissan will disappear (which is far different than 2003).

          Maybe other countries adopt our state’s ZEV rules, as China has already done, as well as Quebec, Canada. Again, the auto manufacturers will still have to produce ZEVs for some places. Low emissions will continue to be paramount in Europe and China, as well as Japan.

          So, VW may get to resell all their non-compliant diesel cars here, instead of shipping them to Africa and the Middle East. Maybe all the diesel cars that Europe doesn’t want get dumped in the USA.

          Maybe we have 2003 all over again. But, 2012 was 9 years later; bigger, bolder, better. If we lose now, short of marshall law / civil war / WW3, this will be just a huge speed bump.

          1. DonC says:

            Yes the Senate could go for the nuclear option. However there aren’t the votes for that. As Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the Republicans will not be in the majority forever. All it takes is one recession.

            The Hitler analogies seem a stretch. In my view Trump is part Berlusconi — the whacko showman part — and part Andrew Jackson — the rabble part.

            1. I actually wasn’t trying to suggest that Trump was Hitler but I was merely using the analogy that Hitler didn’t have much need for rules and laws that were counter to his cause.

              Clearly, Hitler had a multi-decade long political cause that he wrote about and pursued vigorously. Trump does not have any of these political ideologies.

              Donald Trump’s cause isn’t the takeover of Europe and slaughter of millions of people that are seen as bad. Nor is that the goal of the Republican controlled Congress and soon to be Republican controlled Supreme Court.

              But, they each have goals that are counter to clean air, water and land, plus the issues of climate change. It should be painfully obvious that the Republican Congress and my pants are going to run the show. Trump will be the show.

              1. “My pants” above is Mike Pence.

          2. I guess it’s inevitable that somebody will take exception with my list of cars above (“that” car is my favorite / it’s a great car / that was never a CARB-ZEV compliance car), the reality is that auto manufacturers make the most money on big gasoline / diesel cars and trucks.

            They will want to make more of those, and less of low profit cars like EVs. All they need is for EPA-CAFE to ease up, undo CARB-ZEV and some cheap gas, and we will all be driving diesel Suburbans with the “coal rolling” option.

            Even the for-profit EV producers like Tesla and Nissan need the value of CARB credits to help them keep the bottom line in the black.

            This is just their first volley in the war against California rules. In a truly hostile war, there will be many avenues of attack, and they have years to do it.

            How about a simple rule that electric charge equipment is dangerous and outlawed, or seriously hampered in some way.(requires a fire marshall standing by 24/7 with specific EV fire training)?

            How about another rule that no battery or hydrogen car be sold without passing onerous “safety” testing? We only need one hydrogen tank to go boom and take out a bus load of orphans to have an “emergency” requiring a law.

            CalExit will look better and better…until the political pendulum swings the other way. Obama said it best… the sun will come up again tomorrow. We just may not have a lot of the EVs available tomorrow.

        2. Nix says:

          DonC — Yes, as s stand-alone law, it will never get past the Senate. And it is too late for the Senate to nuke the filibuster for this session. They would have had to oave done that on the first day of the session, a few weeks ago.

          But that has never been the worry. The worry has always been that it will be slipped in as a “rider” to any number of “must pass” bills.

          Obama and the Democrats had to swallow a ton of horrible legislation that they otherwise would have either filibustered or vetoed if they were stand-alone legislation that got an individual vote.

          But go look at laws like the Hurricane Sandy aid bill. Or Ohio’s anti-bestiality law. This is how legislation gets passed. Not on individual up/down vote, but by jamming legislation into bills that can’t be filibustered or vetoed.

  7. Rob Stark says:

    I think the supremacy of the Feds was settled in 1865.

    1. DonC says:

      It’s a lot more complicated than this. For starters, supremacy is not pre-emption.

    2. Nix says:

      And yet the Clean Air Act that federalizes pollution regulation has repeatedly been affirmed and re-affirmed over and over as 100% Constitutional.

      That constitution you sit on in your back pocket doesn’t say what you think it says. So says SCOTUS. I think you have have it confused with the Articles of Confederation.

      1. Nix says:

        wait, I think I have to call “my bad”. I just realized you said 1865 and my slow brain finally put 2 + 2 together. I think I got your position 180 degrees backwards in my previous post. My apologies. I retract my snarkyness.

  8. Ron says:

    When the Supreme Court forced Federal Mandates on the States regarding same sex marriage, I felt it was a violation of the 10th amendment.
    Trump’s lackeys trying to force California to accept weaker environmental standards is a similar violation.
    Too much power to the federal government.

    1. philip d says:

      Just like when the federal government forced all those states to allow those women to vote and forced those states to stop buying and selling human beings for labor.

      Too much power.

    2. Spider-Dan says:

      What about when the Supreme Court “forced federal mandates upon the states” in Loving v. Virginia? Or Brown v. Board of Education?

      Protecting individual rights is one of the most important roles of the Constitution, and of the Supreme Court that ensures the Constitution is followed. While it is certainly unenviable to have environmental protections up for a vote every four years, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that basic human rights should be up for the same.

  9. Rick Bronson says:

    No worries even if they remove the mandates.
    Plugin vehicle sales Worldwide has crossed 2 million mark led by China.

    There are many in USA who have started appreciating the drive of electric cars and so they will buy anyway.

    The compliance cars has not contributed much to the PEV sales, its the mainstream vehicles like Model-S, Leaf, Volt which gives all the sales.

    1. Nix says:

      No worries if they remove the mandates before they’ve completed their job.

      No worries if they end tax incentives before they’ve done their job and sunset naturally. While decades of subsidies for oil companies continue or are even increased.

      No worries if they hit us with punitive registration fees that tax an EV for more than a full size truck would pay in gas taxes.

      No worries if they hit us with punitive solar panel connection fees, and kill solar and wind tax credits, and gut net metering so it costs more to charge with solar than to pay an electric company for the juice.

      No worries if they increase the number of coal electric plants that undermine our green cars, handing them a talking point against green cars. And since they made solar punitive, you have to be willing to pay extra to run your EV off of solar.

      Each of these are items that have either ALREADY been passed into law somewhere, or ALREADY have proposed legislation under the incoming party.

      Yea, it is “No worries” until they all add up together to heavily tilting the playing field back towards ICE cars.

      If you are perfectly happy with the EV revolution being a Chinese phenomena, and not a US phenomena, I say 祝你好運

      1. William says:

        No worries? Might be heading down under, mate! That is, until the playing field is less “Tilted”!

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Solar PPAs are reaching $0.03/kWh in good isolation without any subsidies and most of PV makers and buyers are in China, not US, so who cares. The same is for wind, and wind subsidies are already expiring starting from Jan 1st. The rest is just business, subsidies can make big difference for something small, but for something big you just run out of taxpayer money and make little difference anyway. Cheaper always wins, and it goes both ways. Sky is not falling. Things like excessive netmetering feed-in rates are long overdue to be removed, and it is going on with or without Washington D.C. Most solar generation is done at utility scale anyway, so who cares.

      3. DonC says:

        Not to be Pollyanna, but you do know that Nissan is one of the largest employers in Tennessee, right? And then there is BMW in South Carolina. I can’t see a groundswell of support for ending the tax credits. Possible it might be amended in some way.

        1. Nix says:

          It wouldn’t be the first time politicians passed legislation that benefits lobbyists and is against the best interests of the people.

          And given the new cabinet choices, I’m not seeing a bunch of folks brought in to represent the people. I’m seeing choices to represent Goldman Sachs (6 former Goldman Sachs executives) and the oil industry.

      4. Priusmaniac says:

        Another trick is to demand much more than proportional to open a more powerful electric line for an all electric house and car. I open a four times more powerful line in Belgium and it cost me 11 times as much. I complained to the energy minister that it was not logic and going against the logic of reduced unit cost for larger demand. I never got an answer. So conclusion, if you drive a diesel, use a heating oil stove and cook on fossil gas, you are a good one, but if you drive electric, use a heat pump and cook on induction plates, you are a bad one.

  10. Gasbag says:

    “subsidies can make big difference for something small, but for something big you just run out of taxpayer money and make little difference anyway.”

    The bill for US Gov. giving away enough Bolt EVs to crush OPEC 1.9 trillion

    The bill for installing distributed solar for every home and a Tesla Powerwall: 3 triliion dollars.

    The bill for US Gov. giving away enough TM3s to eliminate oil imports; 3.5 trillion

    The bill for defending our addiction to oil for 12 years : 5 Trillion dollars.

    The bill for buying every American taxpayer a brand spanking new Tesla M3: 5.2 trillion

    The bill the GOP is expected to pass when they run out of taxpayer money (hit the debt limit month after next) : 10 trillion

    ..and that is without factoring in economies of scale/volume discount.

    Strange how they decide what they can and can’t spend my money on.

  11. James says:

    Nice! I can tell Donald this: my friends who didn’t want an electric car before now want one as a middle finger to him. A buddy of mine is a die-hard Audi guy, loves the sound of a gas motor purring, was planning to buy another, but now is looking at a Model S.

    1. Nice! Giving Trump the ground line connection (Middle Finger) by buying an EV!

      I still can’t figure how he wants to have clean air with cheap and dirty cars and power production!

    2. Priusmaniac says:

      The puzzling thing is that Trump is said to have a Tesla roadster, which would not only make him an early adopter but also an early Tesla enabler. Trump is very hard to predict.

      1. speculawyer says:

        I find that kind of hard to believe. Trump is a pretty tall (and wide) guy and the Roadster is notorious difficult to get in and out of for large people.

        1. Nix says:

          I wouldn’t be surprised if he bought it and has never personally driven it.

  12. Mark C says:

    And I quote, “The conclusion is inescapable: California’s vehicle future is electric drive,” which is exactly what I’d say if I were producing a compliance car. Though I might edit her statement to read CARB compliance states.

  13. Kdawg says:

    Anyone else find it ironic that the guy who sued the EPA for overreach, may now try to use the power of the EPA to tell a state what it should do?

    1. speculawyer says:

      He doesn’t care about science, public health, or consistency. He just cares about blind faith ideology and corporate greed. That Pruitt guy would literally take letters from oil companies verbatim and send them out from his AG office.

  14. TomArt says:

    “And there has also been a lot of recent talk surrounding Donald Trump’s controversial pick and his not-so-veiled comments about getting California’s Air Resource’s Board (CARB) harmonized under his thumb.”

    Gee, what happened to states’ rights? Oh, right, that’s for legalizing discrimination…silly me…

  15. Bill Howland says:

    Every political discussion on the Left Coast turns into an unfair attack on Putin.

    You guys are obviously unaware of the Beautiful Memorial RUSSIA gave to the American People on Sept 2006 – 5 years after 9/11 and way before the US gov’t even made a memorial.

    Of course the lying news media gave the thing the totally silent treatment.

    And they dumped it next to a junkyard in Bayonne, NJ so no one would ever see it. Poor Bayonne, could even make the 40 foot tall Stainless Steel (what they call nickel plated – (SS is steel with high nickel content) ‘teardrop’ from ‘weeping’ – supposedly they couldn’t figure out how to hook up a garden hose to the thing, or pay for a 1/4 hp pump.

    But its a beautiful 100 Ft tall monument that no one who demonizes the Russian people or their representatives knows about.

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/tributes/teardrop.asp

    1. Ambulator says:

      Very tasteful. It’s sad that I never heard of it before.

      Thanks to Zurab Tesereteii and all of Russia.

    2. What on earth does this statue in New Jersey or the Russian people have to do with the state of California, regulation of air pollution, electric vehicles or Donald Trump’s attempts to hinder state’s rights?

      Nothing.

      Please take your political observations and Trump inspired love of Putin somewhere else.

      By the way, my great grandmother never learned English and only spoke Russian. I doubt they were big fans of Russian politics 100 years ago. I can assure you that I am no fan of the current political operations of Russia, and the threat they pose to the security of our allies and others around the world. But that is not a conversation for this forum.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        You brought up the subject:

        “…Trump is starting out with the most advanced, powerful army in all of history. Emergencies are “easy” to make, just ask Putin… he might find an emergency in a Baltic state that needs “help” from Russia….”

        Or was this a different Tony Williams/.

        Of course, that paragraph was just as accurate as your former statement:

        “THE ONLY WAY TO CHARGE IS TO PLUG IT IN”, or no 3-phase usage in residences, etc.

        You seriously believe California is going to exit? In that case it will be interesting to see what happens when Arizona cuts off all the juice they export to you.

      2. Bill Howland says:

        So in addition to the total daffyness of not even remembering that you brought up the issue of Russia and President Trump yourself, which could be excused for some silly person such as Pushi, but for someone who has a company which advertises here?

        Your mean-spiritedness just can’t be good for business, and it shines a very dim light on the type of people we want to be thought of, that of early EV ambassadors.

        Incidentally, earlier today Mr. Musk had a high-level White House meeting – I’m sure it irks many that Mr. Musk and Trump get along very well.

        Unlike what is typical here, after the big car manufacturer meeting, Trump also had a meeting with the Union Presidents and other Leaders in the labor movement.

        When he cancelled the Trans Pacific Partnership, and stated “This is a Very Good Deal for the American Worker”, all the Union Heads Cheered and Applauded him.

        Jimmy Hoffa later stated this is the beginning of the reversal of 30 years of very bad trade deals, (many of which affected me myself negatively and personally).

        The Democratic Party (or what is left of it) must be Eating their Hats. To have both Progressive company heads (such as Mr. Musk), and, Cheering, Applauding Union Leaders on the Same Day must surely seem like a Surreal Situation that there is almost no recovery (from their point of view).

        Thankfully, our quite mature company heads and union leaders are working with the new president, not insultingly mis-pronouncing his name, nor believing false stories about him, such as destroying the MLK bust when only a cameraman was blocking its view.

        I would hope some people would try to follow Mr. Musk’s, Mr. Fields, and all the Union Leaders concilliatory and yes, laudatory example, as role models in Adult Thinking.

  16. Truth about C.A.R.B in one page. Remember the “Who Killed The Electric Car?” ? CARB and GM, now they say the future is electric cars?

    We produce HHO water cells to clean up truck emissions by 80 to 90%, does CARB listen? NO, they want us out of the picture. CARB in a nutshell : http://hydrogentrucker.com/CARB

Leave a Reply