3 ms·

I don't think this is purely out of spite. It's a calculated move to get/keep support of automotive execs and investors. California is a huge market. Any emissi

I don't think this is purely out of spite. It's a calculated move to get/keep support of automotive execs and investors. California is a huge market. Any emissions standards they set is basically the entire country's, because no manufacturer is not going to sell in the California market. This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because he's saving the automotive industry money.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because he's saving the automotive industry money. Unsure why you're being downvoted. This sounds like, at minimum, one of the lines of calculation. "Hey, we're not going to win California anyway. Let's screw those Americans over and make some money for our buddies over here. Remember fellas, some of that money's gonna come to us!"
busterarm 7y ago
Serious question time: Do the auto manufacturers actually have in their R&D pipeline engines that achieve California's 54.5 mpg target that they can bring to market before 2026? Europe's measuring standards are very different from here and the "80-mpg" economy figures you see touted actually work out to be more like 50 real world...similar to what happens here. Auto manufacturers aren't set to increase standards for the EU until 2030.
- javagram 7y ago
  I’m also curious about this. They might be planning to meet these targets by switching enough of the fleet to hybrids or electric?
GVIrish 7y ago
No, several auto makers actually did not want Trump to cut the federal emissions standards, and 4 manufacturers (VW, BMW, Honda, and Ford) made an agreement with California to meet higher standards than what Trump wanted. Reason being that they're developing more efficient powertrains for global markets, so going backwards from that just for the US would cause them either to waste money developing different models for the US, or lose market share to companies not attempting to be more fuel efficient. The Trump DOJ then sued those automakers for antitrust violations for making an agreement with California to meet stricter emissions/fuel economy standards.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Of course the largest most established carmakers would want to keep an effective form of regulatory capture in place. Byzantine and inconsistent regional compliance requirements raise the cost of market entry.
  - tzs 7y ago
    That seems like a weak argument, because almost everyone trying to enter the car manufacturing market is doing so with electric cars or other low emissions technology, and aren't inconveniences at all by California's emissions requirements.
    - RhysU 7y ago
      How much does it cost to merely certify a model as compliant?
      - tzs 7y ago
        I'd expect California to use the data from the EPA. The manufacturer already has to submit fuel efficiency and emissions information to the EPA. So it should be free or cheap, since all California would be doing is querying the EPA for the data, then comparing those numbers to whatever California's standard is.
fencepost 7y ago
It's a calculated move to get/keep support of automotive execs and investors. Except that the main way it might do so is if they're afraid of being targeted by Trump of they don't support him. In practical terms the auto makers likely need to meet California's desired standards as well as international ones in order to sell cars globally, and if they don't meet them domestically they're vulnerable to competitor ads "$BRANDX, so bad they're illegal to sell in most of the world," etc. Even without those factors, a following Democratic (or Republican, frankly) administration is likely to return to the standards in question. This is "respect mah authoritah!" spite.
- dagw 7y ago
  in order to sell cars globally Look at some the most popular cars from US car makers in the US, like the Ford Fx50 series, Dodge Ram series of trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee etc. Non of those cars sell in any significant number outside the US.
qtplatypus 7y ago
But does it? A change like this is going to result in years of legal cases. The uncertainty means that investing in new designs is more risky as the companies doesn’t know what emissions standards they are aiming for.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because he's saving the automotive industry money. Unsure why you're being downvoted. This sounds like, at minimum, one of the lines of calculation. "Hey, we're not going to win California anyway. Let's screw those Americans over and make some money for our buddies over here. Remember fellas, some of that money's gonna come to us!"

busterarm 7y ago

Serious question time: Do the auto manufacturers actually have in their R&D pipeline engines that achieve California's 54.5 mpg target that they can bring to market before 2026? Europe's measuring standards are very different from here and the "80-mpg" economy figures you see touted actually work out to be more like 50 real world...similar to what happens here. Auto manufacturers aren't set to increase standards for the EU until 2030.

javagram 7y ago
I’m also curious about this. They might be planning to meet these targets by switching enough of the fleet to hybrids or electric?

GVIrish 7y ago

No, several auto makers actually did not want Trump to cut the federal emissions standards, and 4 manufacturers (VW, BMW, Honda, and Ford) made an agreement with California to meet higher standards than what Trump wanted. Reason being that they're developing more efficient powertrains for global markets, so going backwards from that just for the US would cause them either to waste money developing different models for the US, or lose market share to companies not attempting to be more fuel efficient. The Trump DOJ then sued those automakers for antitrust violations for making an agreement with California to meet stricter emissions/fuel economy standards.

drak0n1c 7y ago
Of course the largest most established carmakers would want to keep an effective form of regulatory capture in place. Byzantine and inconsistent regional compliance requirements raise the cost of market entry.
- tzs 7y ago
  That seems like a weak argument, because almost everyone trying to enter the car manufacturing market is doing so with electric cars or other low emissions technology, and aren't inconveniences at all by California's emissions requirements.
  - RhysU 7y ago
    How much does it cost to merely certify a model as compliant?
    - tzs 7y ago
      I'd expect California to use the data from the EPA. The manufacturer already has to submit fuel efficiency and emissions information to the EPA. So it should be free or cheap, since all California would be doing is querying the EPA for the data, then comparing those numbers to whatever California's standard is.

fencepost 7y ago

It's a calculated move to get/keep support of automotive execs and investors. Except that the main way it might do so is if they're afraid of being targeted by Trump of they don't support him. In practical terms the auto makers likely need to meet California's desired standards as well as international ones in order to sell cars globally, and if they don't meet them domestically they're vulnerable to competitor ads "$BRANDX, so bad they're illegal to sell in most of the world," etc. Even without those factors, a following Democratic (or Republican, frankly) administration is likely to return to the standards in question. This is "respect mah authoritah!" spite.

dagw 7y ago
in order to sell cars globally Look at some the most popular cars from US car makers in the US, like the Ford Fx50 series, Dodge Ram series of trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee etc. Non of those cars sell in any significant number outside the US.

qtplatypus 7y ago

But does it? A change like this is going to result in years of legal cases. The uncertainty means that investing in new designs is more risky as the companies doesn’t know what emissions standards they are aiming for.