Trump To U.S. Automakers – We’ll Examine Fuel Economy Standards Together Next Year

2 weeks ago by Steven Loveday 58

President Trump (Image Credit: William Birch, flickr)

According to media reports, President Trump is set to tell automakers that his administration will review the EPA’s fuel economy standards in 2018. Trump will be meeting with the auto workers and executives in Detroit today, and plans to tell them that the review next year will include their input.

The EPA fast-forwarded its review process in the final weeks of the Obama presidency, in order to “lock in” requirements that were previously, tentatively set for 2022-2025. Automakers were frustrated by the fact that the agency rushed its decision, and didn’t include them.

The original timeline, set in 2011, allowed for the EPA to wait until as late as April of 2018, to complete a midterm review. Now, the group of automakers will have the opportunity to speak with new EPA head, Scott Pruitt, about their concerns. They argue that low gas prices have boosted demand and sales for SUVs and trucks, and that more stringent standards will create a loss of jobs.

The White House has made it clear that an additional review of the standards does not necessarily mean that they will be dialed back. Also, at this time, there are no immediate plans to go after the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) individual vehicle emissions rules. Mary Nichols, the CARB chairperson, believes that fuel economy standards could be improved to appease both sides. She shared:

“My goal is to bring permanent peace between California, Michigan and the rest of the country and have everybody working together toward strong fuel economy standards. That was the beauty of the process that President Obama established and the agreement that was reached.”

“We’re not going to refuse to participate in the newly-reopened review process. We’ll be there and we’ll be active.”

“We have the technical and legal ability to run a program that recognizes where electrification of vehicles is headed. We’re trying to put together a mix of incentives and regulations to move the entire industry in this direction. This is what we’re going to do.”

Michigan Democrat and former GM executive, Debbie Dingell, is hopeful. She believes that the review is not set to lessen the standards. Instead, it will give automakers and opportunity to put their heads together and come to a “fresh consensus.”

Myron Ebell, a Trump transition team member agreed. He doesn’t think that all automakers want to see the same changes:

“This is not coming from the auto industry, it’s coming from consumers and the auto dealers association. I don’t think the auto companies are united in what they want.”

Source: Autonews

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

59 responses to "Trump To U.S. Automakers – We’ll Examine Fuel Economy Standards Together Next Year"

  1. Joshua Burstyn says:

    My cynical side says this is simply a way to stall doing anything towards improving economy so Ford, GM and others who sell SUV/Crossovers/trucks can get the maximum value from current (inefficient) technology.

    This is unnecessary. The technology exists to design and manufacture more efficient vehicles. What is lacking is the gumption to DO IT and stop talking about it.

    1. unlucky says:

      Literally everyone sells crossovers/SUVs. Name a single car company that doesn’t. Aston Martin has one coming even. Even Tesla does.

      1. Kdawg says:

        The problem is, customers don’t want fuel efficient vehicles. Or let me rephrase that. Fuel efficiency is way down on the list when it comes to buying a car. If it’s the size/price they want, w/the features they want, and get’s “OK” fuel economy, then that’s what they go with. If you make a much more fuel efficient version, but it costs ~$3K more, most customers will walk the other way. They won’t do the math, and gas $2/gal now.

        The goal is to make fuel efficient vehicles at the same cost as their non-efficient versions. We’re getting there, but not there yet.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          To seal the deal, feather off the Gooberment petrol subsidies.

          1. Kdawg says:

            Higher gas prices just caused people to drive less, not to go out and buy expensive cars. It would add some motivation, but we still need to get the price of efficient vehicles down (biggly) 😀

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              You need more mass production to bring hybrid price premium down. Fuel economy standards are aimed at that without politically impossible steps like fuel taxes.

              It would help US automakers really. Otherwise their gas guzzlers with mostly US sales will become dinosaurs again like last time, when Japanese taken over. US may abandon fuel economy bu it would become an isolated island as the rest of the world with high fuel taxes will have demand for more advanced cars.

            2. Just_Chris says:

              My opinion is that the cost reduction from mass production is much higher than the cost of any additional technology to improve fuel efficiency – including electrification.

              The cost of developing new models and new technologies, however, is significant. This leads to the situation where established auto manufactures don’t want emissions standards because they want to reduce their R&D budget.

              In the end a car will cost the same as it does now regardless of its fuel economy because the majority of people who buy cars have a fixed budget.

              The irony of all of this is the comments around jobs. There is simply no way strong investment in R&D to produce more efficient cars would result in less jobs. Ford is not going to make and sell less cars if an emission standard is adopted so I don’t see how it would alter employment either way in car production. The only place I can see a reduction in employment is if all the various arms of government all agreed on a target is the jobs at the group of automakers, the various political and business development arms of large automakers and the thousands of people on the other side fighting to keep or extend the current targets. I think making a decision either way will result in a lot of influential and well paid people looking for a new job which I just can’t see happening.

              To murder an analogy “the swap is flooded with money I can’t see any chance of it being drained into the real economy soon.”

          2. SJC says:

            Rump likes to think he is an “art of the deal” guy, look for something in return for relaxing standards.

        2. MTN Ranger says:

          Sadly true. It seems the pecking order is brand image / horsepower / high ride over other cars in case of an accident / # of cupholders / place to plug in phone to text while driving.

      2. Dj says:

        Lotus immediately came to mind 🙂

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          McClaren?…….lol

        2. Kdawg says:

          http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a32341/lotus-suv-2021/

          “Speaking to Autocar, Lotus CEO Jean Marc Gales confirmed that an SUV is still in the works.”

    2. fasteddie says:

      Imagine that a car company thinks the new standards are going to be rolled back and does not take steps to meet them!

  2. georgeS says:

    This is good news.

    However I really wish that GM had taken a different position on the standards instead of siding with the rest of the Big3.

    Mary should have stood up and said that GM was uniquely positioned to be able to easily make the standards…..but she didn’t.

    1. Bacardi says:

      Mary has already stated her vision of the future…

      She foresees a NYC dweller hail a Lyft to and from work on the weekdays and to rent a Vette convertible from Maven to drive to the Hamptons for a weekend getaway…

    2. DJ says:

      The problem is that even though they may be better situated than the rest it’s still not in the companies best interest to do that.

      Sure they can make higher cars with higher MPG. That’s obvious but their cost is higher. Higher cost means people will buy them less often and keep them longer which results in fewer sales for GM which reduces revenue.

      CEOs generally aren’t out for saving the planet. They are for improving the value for their shareholders and going after the MPG ratings will help that despite the tiny bit of people saying to vote with your wallet and even fewer who would actually do it.

      Don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is the smart business choice for the immediate and near-mid term future which is really what their job demands.

  3. ffbj says:

    I do love dogs but I’m not a plutocrat.

    Trump has a lot on his plate. Gutting the EPA, destroying the departments of education, and what’s that other one, oh yeah energy. Ruining the SEC, hobbling the IRS. He has to have something to look forward to.

    His main effort along with that of his cronies will be to insure that his personal tax bill and others wealthy billionaires will fall by about half.

    Truly a man of the people.
    Meanwhile, the rural poor who supported him will get the shaft.
    He’s a modern day Robbing Hood, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

    1. georgsS says:

      You didn’t mention Trumpcare. Now that’s a circus act that is truly laughable to watch unfold.

      The poor repubs can’t get it passed because the conservative repubs don’t like it and the liberal Repubs don’t like it.

      1. Kdawg says:

        Guess he ran out of executive orders.

          1. Kdawg says:

            “Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch”.
            ———

            LOL @ accountability. I don’t think know what that means.

          2. needa says:

            We aren’t exactly in the typewriter age anymore. I have no doubt that there is a ton of fat that can be trimmed. Time will tell. Nice find.

    2. Mat says:

      “…his personal tax bill and others wealthy billionaires will fall by about half….”

      from what we know, Trump is paying $0 in taxes. So, dividing this by 2 won’t make a difference 🙂

      1. ArkansasVolt says:

        according to his 2005 taxes, he paid over 25% on taxes… $38M. That is much more than Bernie Sanders (13.5% in 2014) or even Obama (18.7% in 2015).

        http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/15/rand-paul-calls-out-bernie-sanders-tax-rate-after-leak-trumps-returns

        1. unlucky says:

          Sanders only made $200,000 that year (filing jointly!). Yes, a person who makes $150M (as Trump did) would pay more in tax percentage-wise. That’s the intent of the system.

          1. ArkansasVolt says:

            just pointing out that Trump at least paid his fair share in the only tax returns that have been scrutinized and is >> $0 (as stated by Mat).

            1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

              No such thing as “Fair Share”.

              If you make more money and succeed, you get “Penalized” and you pay MORE in taxes.

              lol………yeah, that’s “Fair”.

              1. TomArt says:

                Penalized for being rich? Serioudly?

                Did they “earn” the money they have?

                What does their wealth depend on?

                How are those systems to be guaranteed for continued prosperity?

                1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                  “Penalized for being rich? Serioudly?”

                  Yeah, Penalized.
                  If one started a business, pays in a tax bracket the first few years, then the next makes more money thus moves up a tax bracket, then makes more the next, then moves up a tax bracket and so on.
                  That’s not fair share, it’s penalized.

                  So now one is considered “Rich” at that point.

                  “Did they “earn” the money they have?”
                  If one ran their business well yes. WTF is wrong with that? Why is getting “Rich” seen so damn negative with people??? That’s why one goes into a business right? Or are there other reasons other than making money? Do tell us please.

                  “What does their wealth depend on?”
                  Depends on what their business is. Could be selling a service or product and going from selling around town to the city to the state level then US wide. But who cares. If you’re making money, keep making money but you keep getting penalized when you make more.

                  “How are those systems to be guaranteed for continued prosperity?”
                  Why the hell would you care????…….lol
                  Not your business right? It’s up to the business owner.

                  Don’t see your point at all.

                2. needa says:

                  Lol. Typical millennial bs. I ‘deserve’. I am ‘entitled’ to. He shouldn’t have more than me. I can’t afford to pay for college because I should have the right to spend money on whatever I want and have someone else foot the bill. etc.

                  tl;dr Yes. He absolutely earned it.

              2. SparkEV says:

                I often ask liberals who yell people to “pay their fair share” to quantify exactly what amount or rate is fair. Often times, they say something like 25%, not knowing that top income bracket already pay 39% (or over 50% in states like CA).

                Some don’t give a concrete answer as to what is “fair share”, instead saying “Buffet’s secretary paid more than the billionaire”. You know they’re deceitful POS when they don’t want to back it up with hard number. Bernie Sander is famous for doing this along with many (most? all?) Democratic politicians.

                1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                  As a business owner, I hear that a lot. “so and so1 paid more this year than so and so2”.

                  Not many know about operating costs, equipment purchases, maintenance, and building retrofit’s for expansion, contractors, solar, LED, etc……..lol

                  Sure so and so2 paid less, so and so2 invested more in operating, expansion costs, got rebates from power company etc… in that year.

                  But hey, that makes so and so2 a dirtbag scum for getting away with that…..

                2. Kdawg says:

                  I think a progressive tax is the way to go. I’ve played w/the numbers, and the best scenario I could come up with a flat tax that would work (providing the same amount of revenue) was this:

                  No one pays tax on the first 20K of income. So if you earn $20k or less, you don’t need to file. After the first $20K, everyone pays a 31.8% flat tax. The problem with this is that it shifts more of tax burden onto the middle class.

                3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  1961: During a period of long-term, sustained economic growth in the USA, John F. Kennedy says “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” The top marginal tax rate is 91%.

                  2017: It is an era of the greatest income inequality since the Guilded Age, at the end of a slow recovery from an extended economic downturn. The richest 1%, alone, own fully 50% of all wealth (source 1 below), while all too many of them whine that a top tax rate of 39.6% is “unfair”, even though they can and do hire tax attorneys to find loopholes and shift their wealth around so they can pay a lower percentage in taxes than their own secretaries.

                  I think that deep down, everyone who’s not insane knows what’s really fair and unfair. It’s not just the tax system which is unfair; the stock market and the banking systems are also unfair, and rigged to act like a Bizarro Robin Hood, robbing from the poor and the middle class to give to the very rich. It’s sad that our society has come to the point that it’s considered acceptable for the super-rich to brazenly claim that they don’t have any moral or ethical obligation to share much of their wealth with society as a whole; to deny that those who can best afford to pay more in taxes should be the ones to do so. In a previous generation, the most wealthy understood that was their social responsibility, and didn’t claim that a top marginal tax rate of 91% was “unfair”.

                  Another bit of self-serving propaganda from today’s one-percenters is calling themselves “job creators”, acting like they deserve special treatment because of that. In reality, what they do whenever possible is to destroy good paying jobs by outsourcing them overseas, so they can greedily hog even more of the wealth for themselves; so they can do even better at refusing to share it with those less fortunate than themselves.

                  What’s fair? We all know what’s fair. Those who claim we don’t know aren’t being honest. They’re not being honest with the rest of us, and they’re not even being honest with themselves.

                  https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

                  1. kubel says:

                    “It’s sad that our society has come to the point that it’s considered acceptable for the super-rich to brazenly claim that they don’t have any moral or ethical obligation to share much of their wealth with society as a whole.”

                    I don’t think it’s sad at all, seeing as I don’t feel you or anyone else has a moral or ethical entitlement to the fruit of my labor.

                    And even if you did, in what screwed up world is it morally and ethically obligatory to fund bombing the **** out of brown people? Or paying for PRISM? Or funding the imprisonment of people who are there for possession of a flower?

                    If 40% of my taxes go to things that I find morally repugnant, and 60% of taxes go to things I find useful and beneficial to society, can I selectively opt-out of those morally repugnant things? No, I didn’t think so. I fund the MURDER of women and children. I fund locking people in cages where there is no victim. I fund mass domestic surveillance of an Orwellian scale. That’s disgusting to me. So as long as the state is attached to this moral and ethical obligation that you allegedly have to steal my shit, I’m going to be in opposition to it.

                    Why can’t I just voluntarily pay for the things I find useful, voluntarily hire the people I want to receive a ‘fair share’ in exchange for work, and donate to the charities that I think are in line with my moral standards, and you can take your gun and go point it in some other direction.

            2. Kdawg says:

              Trump only paid that much because of the AMT, (the thing he doesn’t like and is trying to get rid of). Without the AMT he would have only paid 3.5%

              1. SparkEV says:

                AMT or not, if the story is true, Dump did pay quarter of his income in taxes, which he’ll use to make more bombs to drop in other countries.

                But I have my doubts about the story. It’s just way too convenient with plausible deniability. I think it’s fake news created by Dump and stupid media falling for it, like the time he did with Obama birth question press conference.

                1. Kdawg says:

                  And it’s only 1 year. How about last year’s tax return, or the years we already know it was 0%?

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    At the risk of appearing to defend El Trumpo, do we actually know that he paid no Federal income tax in any year?

                    So far as I know, that’s just speculation. But certainly there must be a real reason that he refuses to reveal his income tax returns, and not the fake reason he keeps giving.

                    Based on recent revelations, I think it’s more likely that El Trumpo is hiding his tax returns because they would show just how deeply he is in bed with Russian oligarchs, who are essentially an organized crime gang, led by Putin; a crime organization which has become so rich and powerful that they are beyond the reach of the law.

                2. needa says:

                  It was confirmed legit. How it got to Rachael Maddow in the first place is what I wonder. I assume they leaked it. Not that it matters.

  4. hpver says:

    Well, I guess a one year reprieve is good news, at least for now. But considering the fact that everything this president has touched so far has been made markedly worse as a result, and the fact that this white house and its various sycophant followers produce new scandals and lies almost daily, I’m not particularly hopeful.

    I think the best well-intended and smart people like Mary Nichols will be able to do is mitigate the damage that this train wreck of an administration is intent on causing. I hope I’m wrong.

  5. DangerHV says:

    Postponing til next year is good. By then, Trump should be prison and Pence will be in charge. Not perfect, but FAR, FAR better than where we are now.

    1. Kdawg says:

      Well… Bannon, the ring leader, might still be there. 🙁

      1. DangerHV says:

        I thought Putin was the ring leader and Bannon worked for him. No? Maybe I’m watching the wrong Fake news channel.

        1. Kdawg says:

          There’s some kind of bromance going on.

          1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            ROTFLMAO

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            A mural at a Lithuanian restaurant:

      2. ffbj says:

        Oh..make one! Bannon as a ring-leader.
        I did Hillary as a witch.

  6. Doug Bostrom says:

    Classic quarterly thinking from a guy who does not intend to be left holding the bag when the scam du jour collapses: make fuel more expensive later by “populist” appeal of cheaper cars today.

    Ultimately this will hasten the retirement of Victorian-era IC thrasher engines, so perhaps the broken clock is correct at this hour?

  7. speculawyer says:

    Welp, hopefully Trump will be pushed out of office by then. Kremlingate continues to grow.

  8. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Vote with your wallet people!

    The “Auto Alliance” members are the ones pushing the issue.
    Google their members because IEV’s will filter any posts with their URL.

    https://autoalliance.org/connected-cars/automotive-privacy-2/participating-members/

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      So, you are pro-Trump and pro-Tesla…

      LOL.

  9. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Good that El Trumpo is putting off any reconsideration of fuel economy standards. As I figured, and posted the first time this subject came up, likely he has bigger fish to fry.

    But what about Scott Pruitt, the new climate science denier head of the EPA? Doesn’t he want to roll back the CAFE standards as soon as possible, and kill off CARB? Wouldn’t that fit hand-in-glove with his previous actions, suing the EPA and closing his own State’s environmental protection office when he was State Attorney General?

  10. needa says:

    You see why I say you should wait till it happens before you make an Anti-Trump post, and get people’s feathers in a wad? The other day’s post is now fake news.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      When it comes to finding a good, solid reason to write an anti-Trumpster statement or rant, nobody needs to wait. There is already an embarrassment of riches to choose from! And the list grows daily.

      Join the resistance!

      https://www.facebook.com/indivisibleguide/

      http://www.occupy.com/article/indivisible-practical-guide-resisting-trump-agenda#sthash.7PdjHbFa.dpbs

      1. needa says:

        Why would I want to join a resistance? I supported Obama even though I didn’t vote for him. He was my President. Bill too.
        You left-winged hypocrites are so stuck on yourselves. Trump is doing a lot of good. Some bad too. Pretty much a common occurrence among President.

Leave a Reply