President Obama has ordered the EPA to allow states set their own fuel-efficiency standards (fourteen states had begun the process when President Bush put a stop to it a couple of years ago.) He's also asked the DOT to "develop higher fuel-efficiency standards automakers would have to follow." [USA Today]
Post a comment
Comments:
This is going to cause all sorts of problems for automakers. Fail.
Well, looks like the prices of new cars will be going WAY up soon.
"We have a seven month wait for the special Wyoming version of that car..."
Will this apply to fuel as well? B/c if it does, that's going to lead to A LOT of problems. You get a shortage in a regulated state, and you can't use another states gas, that could be bad. Just saying.
@batsy: Yes, it's terrible that a President is actually doing what the founding fathers intended. Absolutely disgusting.
@SWM,30isoSWF_GitEmSteveDave: There would be no way of regulating what fuel you can use in any given state. They would have to stop every car at the border of each state, drain the tanks, and then fill them back up again before you could cross the state border. Beyond that, I doubt that any state is going to set the standards for their state so high that they are not able to receive sufficient amounts of gas.
I'm torn. It is the right of the separate and sovereign states to determine all issues not specifically covered by the Constitution (and no, interstate commerce would not necessarily cover this contrary to the statists). The 10th Amendment is clear. The issue I have is that too many state legislators have bought into the global warming myth and would pass legislation accordingly and would be pressured by special interest groups to do so.
The safeguard however with separate states is that what the state of California does may not necessarily affect me.
Different states with different standards = massive fuel price increases. It's bad enough that California has its own special blend of gas, now its going to impact far more states, and thus, the loss of efficiency from fuel producers having to create state-specific blends will jack the price of gas way way way up.
Nice work retards. Funny how "states rights" only apply to those special pet projects that liberals champion.
Obama - 0 for 2. Only 4 more years of this mess.
@Plates: Or it is just going to promote car manufacturers to push the limits of fuel efficiency faster than the federal government is going to. Besides, automakers are able to deal with other countries having harsher fuel efficiency standards than in the U.S. just fine. Most people are looking for efficient vehicles nowadays, anyway.
@MrDo: Gas standards by state are already allowed. This is allowing states to require higher efficiency standards for cars sold in their states.
Not terribly different from PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles) cars sold in California and New York.
@MrDo: Dude, plenty of states have their own gas blends. Lots of red states in the middle of the country have strict rules about minimum ethanol additives to gas because it guarantees us buyers for ethanol. It's not really that big a deal.
@White Speed Receiver: Wait, you mean that our government structure is supposed to have a balance of power between the state and federal governments? State rights? That sounds like anti-federalist talk to me!
What's with the worst-case thinking? This is politics, not programming. Standardization makes sense for the reasons you mention, and it will happen. The reality is that this finally allows a few to get the ball rolling while the big-$ lobby firms are busy in DC.
One reason for this, remember, is that states have to meet federal emissions standards or face losing things like federal highway funding. States with serious air pollution problems -- red OR blue -- often push for higher standards because they NEED to get that pollution under control and the federal fuel standards aren't high enough to assist with that.
Even North Carolina was considering higher fuel and emissions standards because the air pollution problem in Charlotte is so serious and NC's federal road funding is ALWAYS teetering on the edge because of it.
The EPA has dragged its heels on setting forward-thinking emissions standards for years now. If the federal government had done its job instead of bowing to lobbyists, states wouldn't need to do this.
Also, I think the "oh noes every state will require a different type of car now" worries are overblown and encouraged by automakers to sow FUD.
@Eyebrows McGee: [www.epa.gov]
Q. Are states and local areas allowed to have clean gasoline requirements that differ from Federal requirements?
A. The Federal gasoline requirements in the Clean Air Act takes precedence, except under certain circumstances where the Act allows states to implement their own clean fuel programs. (In the case of California, that is the only state that is allowed under the Act to establish its own controls on motor vehicle fuels). Right now, there are fifteen states that have their own clean fuel program, providing cleaner air to millions more people than would otherwise occur. Some states like New York and Connecticut have the federal RFG program, but have banned the gasoline additive MTBE which is used to provide oxygen in the fuel. Since RFG must contain a minimum of 2 percent oxygen by weight and MTBE is banned in these states, the oxygen must be supplied to the RFG by another additive. The only other additive that is used by refiners in the U.S. is ethanol. Thus, although it meets the federal requirements, RFG in states that ban MTBE is different from RFG in states that do not ban MTBE because of the different oxygenate used in the fuel.
@White Speed Receiver: When are people going to realize the Constitution is just a quaint anachronism?
The only ones that this will hurt are small overeager states. If they pass requirements that are too out of whack or would cost too much to modify, then auto manufacturers will just take their ball and go home.
It will however, force them into a "most efficient common denominator" model where they will set their goals based on being able to sell vehicles in the greatest number of states. Frankly, it will impose Califirnia on the rest of us. They build to CA efficiency standards and sell to everyone.
@Canino: But it's not. The Framers, with their foresight, saw that everything they had written about could not encompass everything that might come up in the future. So, instead, we have the 10th Amendment that basically says that anything not outlined here will be left up to the States to decide for themselves. Letting the Federal Government make up all the ideas is not always the best choice.
That said, I feel this is one of those cases where there should be a national standard.
@Canino: The first time they read it and try and match up the power grabs by the federal government with the (missing) language authorizing said grabs.
@nighttrain2007: I would imagine that automakers would go by the highest fuel- efficiency standard and continue selling cars nationwide. That's just my opinion though, I'm a little unsure/ confused on whether or not this is a good thing.
Sounds great! Lets put all of these impossible and expensive standards on our automakers when they are just barely holding on anyway! That way only the rich will be afford to buy cars, and the poor people can get on the bus, where they belong! Seriously. Carbon Credits? Environmentalism? I dunno, but I do know this:
"Joe Burger Flipper" can go buy any old beater car for 1500 bucks. Looks like Joe is going to ride a bike! Do you know what that would do to our economy if all you can buy is a bloody Prius? Most people spend 15 percent of their income on a car payment, if they need a loan. A prius or similar "green" vehicle costs about 22,000. Assuming 6 percent, Spread over 5 years, thats $388 a month! That would mean Joes take home pay would have to be $2,600 a month! Joes gonna be working a lot of overtime or riding the bus.
How does this not simply have the effect of imposing the requirements of the state with the highest requirements (California) on the rest of the country?
@corsec67: 10th Amendment? 10th Amendment?!? Don't you realize it's more important how the 'poor consumers' feel.... BTW you are spot on and Federalist #45 confirms this stance.
hooray for higher prices!
I guess conservatism isn't dead. There is still a little bit left in the democratic party.
@nighttrain2007: Some areas of California do have issues with smog. So even if you don't believe in global warming, there is definitely a good reason why California has implemented stricter environmental standards.
Damn Obama for favoring air-breathers over laughably over-built, four-wheeled cancer factories. Damn him to HELL!
@Geoff: There would still be a national standard, but states will be allowed to create a standard that exceeds that of the nation. I don't see why the states shouldn't be allowed to create a restriction on this. If states don't want any cars within their limits, so be it or if they want to only allow clean cars, that's ok.
@Eyebrows McGee: This is part of why this is needed. Some states need higher emissions restrictions because they have more cars. Alaska may not find as much of a need for high fuel efficiency ratings in their cars, but that's because they don't have as many people driving cars as California.
@Chris Walters: Right, states won't need different vehicles because the car manufacturers, if they are smart, will create cars that can meet the strictest guidelines and then just market those cars everywhere rather than creating cars with more exhaust for the states with lower standards.
@ceilingFANBOY: Yes, there would be a way to regulate it. You mandate which formulation gas can be sold in your state. IIRC, there already are fuel formulations for certain parts of the US. NJ used to add something like MBT(?) to it's gas every winter, until it was found to be polluting ground water, and they removed it. I remember when I pumped gas, there was a notice on every pump telling you this.
@badgeman46: Efficient cars aren't expensive to make. Manufacturers don't have the pressure to make efficient cars and therefore don't. Just look at the 1994 Geo Metro XFi. The car matched the Prius' gas mileage and it was a cheap car 15 years ago. If manufacturers stop putting pointless crap in our cars like heated steering wheels or an engine that lets your car go 160mph in a country that rarely has speed limits above 65 they could easily make efficient cars that don't cost a fortune.
@ceilingFANBOY: That's right, the Federal standard would be the "floor" and states could them impose higher/different standards. The problem is that car companies would have to comply with the highest stanard as it doesn't make sense to make 30 different version of the same model for each state.
Guess was the car companies are going to do with the money we just gave them? Lobby us to get this rule changed.
@ceilingFANBOY: RE Geo Metro - It was also a deathtrap, so if you don't want your car to have things like airbags, crumple zones, or any of those nifty features that keep people alive, by all means.
You can make cars extremely fuel efficient, but you do have to give up something in the process, either performance, safety, weight, or price.
A better idea would be to improve the federal standards and make California build large mass-transit systems. What's the point of having fuel-efficient cars if all you do is stand in traffic all day?
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: What about all that conservative talk about State's rights, founding fathers, etc.? Obama did the most conserative thing, allowing the states to decide. Why are you complaining?
Additionally, the air standards have nothing to do with mileage, but with unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and basically anything that isn't water vapor or carbon dioxide. Hence, that Geo Metro is dirtier than a modern Subaru Legacy, which is found in SULEV and PZEV forms.
@SWM,30isoSWF_GitEmSteveDave: Those fuel standards have already varied from state to state. I was just saying that there is no way that they would be able to tell you that you can't go to another state and fill up your tank.
People are saying the car companies will be forced to manufacture two cars, one for California and one for the rest of the country. Why not just produce one car with the highest efficiency standards possible? Makes the most sense to me.
I'm slightly confused. I get that it's great that some states are now able to be more strict in their pollution policies, forcing 'cleaner' products and practices. But what's to stop the opposite? It sounds like this new order allows any state to relax their standards too if they wanted.
@ohnoes: There is a portion of the standards that does come from mileage. Higher mileage means less fuel burned, which in turn means less pollutants going into the air. As for the more efficient ways of burning fuel, the XFi was made 15 years ago, things change over time. If you combine the cleaner ways of burning fuels with a lower amount of fuel being consumed, then emissions would be much lower. Front end collisions for the metro were rated at 3 and 4. While not ideal ratings, those aren't quite death trap ratings, either, especially considering the size of the vehicle. Even then, technology in protecting the occupants of a vehicle have become more sophisticated recently and more can be done with the same weight of material nowadays than could be done 15 years ago.
Let states set their own standards? I can't decide whether this is good or bad.. I'm generally not a fan of letting states do their own thing.