Trump Headed To Detroit Area To Announce Review Of EPA Emissions Standards

6 months ago by Sebastian Blanco 84

President Trump

Trump to announce review of federal MPG rules this week

The big news will be here Wednesday, but you can probably guess today.

We May See Some Changes To Window Stickers In The Future Too

Sources have told Bloomberg that Trump will meet with automotive executives Wednesday and is likely to announce a reconsideration of the EPA’s fuel economy standards.

Right after November’s Presidential election, the automotive industry saw a chance to step back from the promises it made with the previous administration and asked President-elect Trump to roll back the federal fuel economy regulations. Known as CAFE standards and set to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 (with caveats), outside observers said that the auto industry was well on its way to reaching those targets.

But the auto industry didn’t like the higher targets, and wanted Trump and his administration to take their own swing at things. Ford put it starkly, saying that we can’t have both greener cars and jobs.

Even though the original deal was crafted in 2011, the EPA only decided in January to finalize the 2022-2025 part of the agreement, called the mid-term review. Since that came so close to the end of the Obama era and well before the actual deadline of April 2018 – and because the auto industry has a history of fighting legislation that’s good for people, like air bags and seat belts – Trump is expected to say Wednesday that the mid-term review will be reopened.

We can see how the auto industry talks out of both sides of its mpg mouth by taking a look at the Auto Alliance, which represents a number of major automakers. On its website, it promotes how green cars are now.. It says, “Today’s vehicles are more energy-efficient thanks to advancements by automakers that take a vehicle farther on a tank of gas or an alternative fuel,” and “Consumers enjoy much choice when shopping for energy-efficient autos.” That all sounds like a good thing, right?

Well, in the Alliance’s letter to Trump’s new EPA, it says (PDF) instead that, “The Alliance requests that EPA withdraw the Final Determination and resume the Midterm Evaluation, in accordance with its original timetable, to remedy the severe procedural and substantive defects that have infected the process to date.” In other words, the Alliance wants to take credit for the high-mpg cars available now, but doesn’t want to work to make them better in the future. At least, not using the old, Obama-era terms.

The auto industry thinks that Trump should help decide how green cars should be in the future.

Source: Bloomberg

Tags: , , , , ,

84 responses to "Trump Headed To Detroit Area To Announce Review Of EPA Emissions Standards"

  1. Djoni says:

    Let me guess the next president tweet:
    And the trumpet blew like they never blew before.
    It was amazing so much playing together”

    Nobody can control what goes on in a narcisic head.

    1. ijonjack says:

      All the heavy Lifting has been Done ,Everything is Well in place . There is NOTHING Further for Trump to do. I hope he has sense enough to leave Well enough Alone!!

      1. Jeff says:

        that is hilarious… rofl… leave well enough… rofl…

        Trump is not guided by morals or ethics… don’t hold your breath for sensible legislation from these guys.

  2. Djoni says:

    And don’t worry the only green they want for a car to be is the green of your money.

    1. randomhuman says:

      Hahaha nice

  3. Joe says:

    The car industry is a worldwide industry. Europe and China have even stricter goals in terms of gas emissions by 2020.
    All future engines are built to satisfy these future higher standards. And electric cars will be the priority.

    The risk that might affect the US. Car manufacturers will recycle their old dirty engines as they do for the third world with no consideration for the people’s health

    And it might render the US automotive uncompetitive against European, Japanese Korean and Chinese auto industry in the near future because of the lack of investment.

    Some smart car manufacturers in the US might take advantage of these less strict rules to outperform their competitors and offer much cleaner cars.

    1. Grant says:

      I agree, as long as they don’t get blocked out of their home marketplace

    2. speculawyer says:

      The problem is that all their profits are in the big gas guzzlers. So they will jump on it and when the gas price shoots back up again, they have nothing that can compete with the foreign companies such that they go bankrupt again.

  4. SparkEV says:

    I wonder if the repeal will do anything. People are getting more interested in EV, and most are above 100 MPGe. Even if they entirely eliminated government mandate on fuel consumption targets, I think CAFE will increase beyond 100 MPG(e).

    But emissions are another matter. They need to tighten them up. I don’t mean CO2 and green house gases, but the real pollution like HC, NOx, O3, etc. Side effect of this could be better MPG, too.

    1. darth says:

      I assume you don’t think CO2 is “real pollution” because it does not directly harm people when we breathe it. However, the indirect affects of the increase of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning impact so many things indirectly to such a great extent that I don’t think we can afford to not address it.

      1. a-kindred-soul says:

        The good thing about addressing CO2, is that by lowering it the other (“real”) pollutants go down too. So even for climate deniers it’s good to lower CO2.

        1. Anon says:

          Hey! Reason and facts never helped win over a Trump Supporter! 😉

      2. SparkEV says:

        In the minds of many Dump supporters, CO2 is seen as something that’s only for “liberals”. Sure, CO2 does affect things, but the bulk of it won’t be felt for decades, or even centuries. By then, hopefully humanity would have moved on from fossil fuel even without mandates.

        Meanwhile, curbing immediately harmful stuff (what I call real pollution) brings tangible benefits for everyone right away. I was very surprised to find how awful things are near the highways and busy roads.

        1. Kdawg says:

          “Sure, CO2 does affect things, but the bulk of it won’t be felt for decades, or even centuries.”
          ————
          You might want to research that.
          Oh, this is also called kicking the can down the road.

        2. Mister G says:

          spark, go to youtube and search “Miami tidal flooding”…you will see video evidence of sea level rise.

    2. georgeS says:

      “I wonder if the repeal will do anything. People are getting more interested in EV,”

      CAFE meh. It’s CARB they will go after next. Then it’s off to court for years.

      …but I think you are right. In the end EV’s will win over consumers based on other positive things than being “green”.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        I think you’re right, George. Well within Trump’s term, or already, people will see through what amounts to upward corporate socialism. The benefits of these cars are getting easier to see, and he’s making a bad strategy call, at the wrong time.

        1. Anon says:

          This man has shown he can take billions– and make mere millions. 😉

    3. Warren Hurd says:

      Trees like CO2
      The rest of the stuff is still bad.

      1. Paul Smith says:

        We are not trees, and besides the rising temps are already killing trees.

  5. Alaa says:

    It is way too late for Trump, Putin and Saudi to do anything about it. We no longer need oil.

    1. ffbj says:

      Right, we only burn about 380 million gallons of gas a day.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        ……and we (gooberment) subsidize this sh1t giving money away to OPEC……lol

      2. Michael Will says:

        A lot of that is going away soon. I already replaced both our gas cars 2015 and 2016. Oil will still be needed for manufacturing but the burning of gas will die down eventually and starts taking hits already. Maybe the US will hold itself back on progress, but the rest of the world won’t, and China may very well take the lead technology wise.

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-prices-under-pressure-after-us-supply-rises-china-demand-wanes-2017-03-08

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…going away soon” ???

          Somehow I don’t think my definition of “soon” is the same as yours.

          Even if we stopped selling gasmobiles tomorrow, it would still take about 15 years to replace all (well, nearly all) the gasmobiles on the road with plug-in EVs.

          More realistically, gasmobiles will almost certainly remain a major part of the new car market for at least the next 20 years, and possibly longer.

          It seems highly likely to me that a human generation from now, gasmobiles will still be a significant percentage of vehicles on public roads.

  6. Mister G says:

    Trump and Republicans in Congress need to visit the most polluted Chinese cities and let their offspring play in the dirty toxic air. Lenfen, China should be their first stop.

    1. Mister G says:

      Linfen not lenfen

  7. Nelson says:

    I think the Auto Alliance is setting up Trump to take a hit in the coming years. Lower MPG means higher consumption of gas, which means greater demand justifying higher prices. The more money consumers need to spend on gas the less money they have to spend on other things. If Trump does nothing about the current EPA rules and things do sourer for the auto industry he could blame Obama in a year or two, then make his case to change things.

    NPNS! SBF!
    Volt#671

    1. georgeS says:

      “I think the Auto Alliance is setting up Trump”

      add Trumpcare to that list. It really has a ring doesn’t it.

      1. Tim says:

        “Trumpcare” works on multiple levels.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      RE: gas prices

      I wouldn’t put long odds on a handy mid-east conflict, brought to us by our State Department.

  8. mx says:

    Cuts to the EPA budget will increase cancer in Repub states, killing off Repub voters. It’s a long slower process, a kind of Evolution.

    But, there will be Cancer Jobs! For years.
    Repubs benefit: Oil, Coal, Hospitals, Doctors, and Mortuaries with higher death rates.

    But, actually hospitals and doctors may have to lower prices as fewer white working class Americans are going to have healthcare.

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      Wouldn’t it kill off more Democratic voters, since the Liberal east and Liberal west coasts are so densely populated compared to the Republican flyover states, especially the big cities with air pollution problems like Los Angeles, San Fransisco, New York City, Boston, Philadelphia?

      1. mx says:

        The cities have air pollution from car traffic.
        The rural white Republican voter is going to die off from the Fracking explosion, with no EPA water quality tests of any kind.

        And coal, now there will be no testing of mercury levels from coal processing, all rural problems.

  9. silversod says:

    How does the song go! When the going gets tough the tough get going……or in the case of the Big US auto manufacturers they throw the towel in.

    I’d really hoped he wouldn’t cave in to the oil guys & set the industry back decades.

  10. ffbj says:

    The applause driven White House.

    1. Michael Will says:

      +1

  11. pjwood1 says:

    Donald Trump stands for entitlement. Why should you get something better, when Detroit can go back to “the 4, the 6, or the 8?”.

    AAM’s goal to have Pruitt’s E?A “withdraw the final determination” sounds illegal, on its face, to me. All he can legally do is a new review, science and then submission for comment. If they try to “re-open”, within minutes there will be lawsuits. EPA was well within the boundaries to accelerate the “mid-term” review. My understanding of the language was that it was to be completed “by 2018”, not within a prescribed window.

    Lastly, let’s not forget the 2022-2025 period is just a fractional part of CAFE. If over-turned, there will have to be more successful “reviews/findings/comments/rules” to speed up going backwards. Not unexpected. This EPA would lie about the color of the sky.

  12. Four Electrics says:

    Once when Elon learns he can’t get what he wants will he quit the Trump regime. Until that time he will still associate himself with Trump. And the damage will be done.

    1. Michael Will says:

      Did EPA finally approve the 100D ?

    2. georgeS says:

      “Once when Elon learns he can’t get what he wants will he quit the Trump regime. Until that time he will still associate himself with Trump. And the damage will be done.”

      IMO he would have done more damage to Tesla if he had sided with the other tech companies that were opposed to Trump.

      1. Mister G says:

        I agree…why pick a fight with a paranoid man? As long as Trump doesn’t come out against EV industry, Elon should play it friendly with paranoid Trump.

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Mister G said:
          “I agree…why pick a fight with a paranoid man?”

          I’ll have to remember that next time Pu-Pu or Get Real accuse me of being a Tesla shorter, FUDster, and/or paid shill. 😀

          1. Djoni says:

            Doesn’t this make you a paranoïd?

            Just saying!

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              As a NYC taxi driver once told me during a late night ride home oh so many years ago:

              “I wouldn’t be so paranoid if everyone wasn’t out to get me.” 😉

      2. Tim says:

        I believe the term is Collaborator. Trump will be a short lived blip, and the swing in the other direction will leave those who stuck with Trump on the wrong side of it all.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Once when Elon learns he can’t get what he wants will he quit the Trump regime.”

      The only way Elon would disassociate himself from the Trumpsters is if he decides to abandon SpaceX. So long as he’s the CEO of SpaceX, or even a major stockholder, then he’s going to hold his nose and continue to “play nice” with the Trumpsters. He literally can’t afford not to cooperate with SpaceX’s #1 customer and the source of most of its funding.

      Those focusing on Elon being CEO of Tesla, as shedding light on his association with the Trumpster administration, are blind to the Truth. Tesla can get along without help from the Trumpsters. SpaceX cannot.

  13. Texas FFE says:

    It doesn’t make any sense that the auto manufacturers are fighting emissions regulations. Auto manufacturers are in the business of selling cars not gasoline. What do the auto manufacturers care whether cars run on gasoline, electricity or buffalo chips for that matter?

    The only way I can see an auto manufacture wanting to fight emissions regulations is if a lot of their stock is owned by oil companies or visa versa. So it might be the oil company interests that are fighting emission regulations not actually the auto manufacturers. But so many of the oil companies and auto manufacturers are so invested in each other anymore you probably can’t tell the difference between them financially.

    I think auto manufacturers who aren’t as invested in oil companies, like Tesla, will be a lot more flexible in terms of emissions regulations. Instead of fighting change oil companies should be investing in change like putting money into renewable energy. Change coming whether the oil companies like it or not and they better go with the flow if they want to stay solvent.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “It doesn’t make any sense that the auto manufacturers are fighting emissions regulations. ”

      No it doesn’t, but to them it makes Dollar$$!!!

    2. Kdawg says:

      Because, at this time, they can make regular gassers cheaper, and they wouldn’t have to invest as much into R&D either.

    3. mx says:

      All regulations fall on all companies the same.
      Actually, larger companies have an easier time hiring talent to meet those regulations.

      Making cleaner, more efficient trucks would give Ford, for example, a competitive advantage.

      But, the way they complain, you’d think it’s their business to drill for oil and refine it into gas.

  14. Toni says:

    Thanks USA! One more reason to hate you…

    1. Texas FFE says:

      Yeah? Where do you live? At least we can have open debate and don’t get shot for expressing our opinions.

      If the USA is so bad why is there so much interest in building a wall to keep people OUT?

      1. Michael Will says:

        You get shot even without voicing your opinion 🙂

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

        1. Texas FFE says:

          In Texas we shoot back.

          1. speculawyer says:

            cross-fire. Great. I feel so much safer.

        2. SparkEV says:

          That page is cherry picking data. Countries with far fewer guns and much stricter gun laws have much higher gun deaths than US. For example, Brazil has the highest murders in the world, yet their gun laws are as strict as much of Europe. El Salvador and Honduras have the highest rate in the world, and their gun laws are similarly strict.

          If you look at the demographics of who is doing much of the murders, it’s like the guys who do the killings in Latin America: gang bangers and drug criminals. If Europe has as many drug dealing gang bangers like the US, they’d have just as much murders regardless of gun laws or number of guns.

          1. Djoni says:

            If you consider them developped country.
            Not sure they all fit.

          2. mx says:

            Yes, there’s a blood bath in Denmark and Britain.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “For example, Brazil has the highest murders in the world, yet their gun laws are as strict as much of Europe.”

            Speaking of cherry-picking data…

            Compare the per-capita homicide rate in Toronto (in Canada) with the nearby city of Buffalo (in the U.S.):

            Toronto: 1.4 per 100,000
            Buffalo: 18.7 per 100,000

            Of course, the difference isn’t just that Canada has much greater restrictions on gun ownership. It’s that in Canada, guns are not a part of the culture, they are not celebrated and worshiped, the way they are here in America.

  15. DonC says:

    Automakers are still butt stupid. A final determination is still a final determination. You can look at it again if you want but in order to do something about the rules you have to restart rule making. And then of course there is the CARB waiver which runs through 2015. Unless you think that President Trump can “unpardon” those individuals pardoned by President Obama, there is no way to revoke the CARB waiver granted by the Obama Administration — there just isn’t any statutory authority to do that.

    That doesn’t even address the China and EU regulations.

    Rather than spending time and money on resisting the inevitable, car makers would be better served by figuring out how to comply.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      Don, I haven’t seen anything that does not seem to put discretion over CARB in EPA’s hands. That includes outstanding rules which exceed federal standards. I understand CARB waivers, more or less, to be another form of Executive order.

      https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/11/20/00-29500/california-state-nonroad-engine-and-vehicle-pollution-control-standards-notice-of-within-the-scope

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yeah. So far as I can see, waivers by the EPA to allow individual States to use CARB standards, rather than the EPA’s national standards, are entirely at the discretion of the head of the EPA. Is there any reason he can’t disallow them at the stroke of a pen?

        There have been Supreme Court cases that have addressed the issue of EPA waivers, but accordingly to my limited layman’s understanding, all the Supreme Court rulings have been within the context of whether or not any case is within the purview of a waiver. So far as I can see, the Supreme Court has never suggested the head of the EPA doesn’t have the power to issue waivers… or not.

        It’s certain that there will be lawsuits if and when the new, Trumpster head of the EPA eliminates the waiver for CARB standards. But I’m far from convinced those lawsuits will succeed in doing anything more than a temporary delay.

        Here’s hoping I’m surprised.

        1. Nix says:

          It would take a change in the law for them to undo prior waivers. But the actual legislation could be as simple as a single line that repeals the entire waiver section of the law. It could be slipped into any bill, and would simply say “Strike section XXX in its entirety”.

          If passed ALL California waivers would instantly go away, and only the Federal standards would remain for all states to follow.

  16. Eco says:

    Dump Trump

    1. SparkEV says:

      ??? DUMP = Donald trUMP.

  17. needa says:

    When you can hit a telephone pole at 5 mph and do $4500 worth of damage to your brand new Silverado… Something is wrong.
    The cars and trucks are being built with paper thin metals now. So thin that it becomes a danger. And why? To save two mpg?
    Change the cafe standards. A bunch of scientists with theories should not be threatening my safety.

    1. Michael Will says:

      What utter baloney. The choices on how to achieve it are up to the business, Tesla gets 5-star ratings and does not use gas at all.

      1. needa says:

        In ten or so years when there are enough batteries in the world to build every new car with them, your comment might hold weight. Though only if cars are being built again with thick enough metal to be able to handle a 5 mph crash without doing $4500 in damage. I get the feeling though that standards are going to keep them from being able to do that.
        Till then there is more than a 5 star rating to consider when it comes to safety.

        1. Djoni says:

          Show me your 4,500$ 5 mph crash pole first.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          The ability to withstand a 5 MPH impact with a telephone pole without significant damage has a lot more to do with the design of car bumpers, and whether or not auto makers build springs or shock absorbers into them, than it has to do with how thick or thin the metal of the body panels is. (Altho actually, the nose of a modern car is far more likely to be almost entirely plastic than metal.)

          If auto makers started putting real bumpers on cars again, real bumpers like they had on the Model T or the classic Volkswagen Beetle, then we wouldn’t be seeing complaints about thousands of dollars of damage from very low-speed front and rear impacts.

    2. mx says:

      Automatic Collision Prevention.
      Get it in your next GM Truck, and don’t drink and park.

  18. Alan says:

    US auto manufacturers are slitting their own throats, other countries will be sticking to very tight restrictions from now on thanks to dieselgate & climate change, they are either going all electric or PHEV within 5 years, those that drag their feet will simply start losing customers elsewhere.

    A twist of fate has set them on a path they can’t now get off regardless of what Trump does with the EPA now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

    Delaying the enevitable is folly, ask Kodak or Nokia.

  19. georgeS says:

    The big 3 don’t want to make EV’s. So don’t make them. Just let Tesla take the whole market.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      +1

      Let them fail.

    2. Texas FFE says:

      GM sells 19 million cars a year, Ford sells 11 million a year and FCA sells 6 million a year. Tesla sold less than 100 thousand cars last year. It’s going to be a long time if ever before Tesla takes over anything.

      1. Josh Bryant says:

        George’s point is with relaxed standards combined with low gas prices, there is more profit in SUVs and trucks. That is where the big automakers will put their engineering/manufacturing/sales effort. One spike in gas prices and consumers will flee that market faster than the big autos can change their entire supply chain. It will be bailout begging and bankruptcy all over again.

        In the meantime Tesla is building technology into the future market. Kind of like the saying “skate to where the puck is going.” Tesla just needs to get past the thin ice between here and there.

        A drop in the CAFE standards is a long term advantage to Tesla. Eliminating ZEV credits would be a short term blow to Tesla though. They need every $ they can get for expansion right now.

        1. mx says:

          The regulations apply to all companies equally.
          The industry makes the same profit at what ever level the regulations are implemented at.

          There is no competitive advantage, or more profit, from a drop in regulations. All companies will have lower costs, and some companies will pass those costs on as lower prices.

          Like Honda and Toyota typically drop prices. Causing Ford and GM to look like they have a price/management problem, with overpriced vehicles, and then they will lose sales.

          Then they’ll have to find some thing else to blame it on, like safety regs, and seat belts.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “There is no competitive advantage, or more profit, from a drop in regulations.”

            Well of course there’s an advantage in profits if they can make cars cheaper, and thus sell more of them, which gives them more total profits.

            It’s a perfectly defensible business strategy… if you only look at short-term profits, and ignore what always happens when low gas prices encourage American auto makers start making more and more big gas-guzzling cars, SUVs and pickups.

            Learning has not taken place.

  20. speculawyer says:

    This crazy old man really thinks we are going back to driving V8 Caddies with fins.

    Ugh.

  21. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Hey, let’s roll back the CAFE standards, so American auto makers can once make and sell lots of big, heavy gas guzzlers, which will instantly become obsolete the next time gas prices inevitably spike.

    Because that worked so well the last time at preserving American jobs and keeping American auto makers from going bankrupt, right?

    /sarcasm

    It’s hardly any surprise that El Trumpo is in favor of short-term profits at the expense of long-term sound business practices. That’s the same reason he managed to drive his Atlantic City casinos into bankruptcy court no less than four times!

    1. Thanh Lim says:

      Please, don’t get any ideas into Dear Leader’s brains.

      He’ll say, “Let’s give the people what they want. The people want powerful, fun cars. And we should do that. Give them lots of muscles and the benefits would be huuuge. Let’s just get rid of CAFE standards all together and let he market handle it all.”

    2. Mister G says:

      Strongman Trump can say and do anything and it will be okay with 50% of white America. Trump can say “eating manure is healthy” and 50% of white America will eat manure for dinner lol